Anchorage quality of deciduous molars versus premolars for molar distalization with a pendulum appliance

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess dental anchorage qualities when the pendulum appliance is used for distal molar movement. Material: Thirty adolescents in various dentition stages received a modified pendulum appliance with a distal screw and a specially preactivated pendulum spring for...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 2005-03, Vol.127 (3), p.314-323
Hauptverfasser: Kinzinger, Gero S.M., Gross, Ulrich, Fritz, Ulrike B., Diedrich, Peter R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess dental anchorage qualities when the pendulum appliance is used for distal molar movement. Material: Thirty adolescents in various dentition stages received a modified pendulum appliance with a distal screw and a specially preactivated pendulum spring for bilateral molar distalization in the maxilla. The subjects were subcategorized into 3 groups of 10 according to the dental anchorage used: deciduous molars, premolars and deciduous molars, or only premolars. Dentoalveolar effects and side effects in the anchorage unit and in the molar area were determined by cephalometric analysis. Results: Statistical analysis of the measurements showed significant differences between groups in the extent of molar distalization and the resulting incisor protrusion. Distal tipping of the 6-year molars was significantly less severe (2.3° ± 1.58° to the palatal plane and 2.55° ± 1.52° to the anterior cranial base) in patients with premolar anchorage than in those with deciduous molar anchorage (6.15° ± 3.42° and 6.35° ± 3.46°). Incisor protrusion was significantly more pronounced in patients with deciduous molar anchorage (2.75 ± 1.4 mm) than in the other 2 groups (1.65 ± 0.82 mm, mixed deciduous molar and premolar anchorage, and 1.75 ± 0.75 mm, premolar anchorage). Additionally, incisor protrusion was translatory compared with controlled tipping in subjects with deciduous molar anchorage or premolar and deciduous molar anchorage. Conclusions: Deciduous molars and premolars can be used for anchorage for molar distalization with a pendulum appliance; however, anchorage with premolars only results in the least pronounced dentoalveolar side effects. The anchorage quality of deciduous molar and mixed deciduous molar/premolar anchorage is limited.
ISSN:0889-5406
1097-6752
DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.09.014