The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on September 27, 2008
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2008 30(6):558-571; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjn047
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Treatment effects of intraoral appliances with conventional anchorage designs for non-compliance maxillary molar distalization. A literature review
Department of Orthodontics, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Address for correspondence Dr Gero S. M. Kinzinger, Department of Orthodontics, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, D-52074 Aachen, Germany. E-mail: gkinzinger{at}ukaachen.de
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Since the end of the 1970s, various appliances with intramaxillary anchorage for distalization of the upper molars have been described as an alternative to headgear. The major advantages of these innovative appliances are that they act permanently and are independent of patient compliance. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency, both quantitatively and qualitatively, of various appliance types with intramaxillary anchorage for non-compliance molar distalization. Eighty-five papers were reviewed, and 22 were identified as being suitable for inclusion. The selection was based on compliance with the following criteria: treatment group with at least 10 non-syndromal patients, conventional intraoral anchorage design using a palatal button and anchorage teeth, consistent cephalometric measurements in clinical–epidemiological studies, exact data on the course of treatment, and statistical presentation of the measured outcomes and their standard deviations.
The results show that non-compliance molar distalization is possible with numerous different appliances. While molar distalization with standard pendulum appliances exhibited the largest values for dental-linear distalization, it also resulted in concurrent, substantial therapeutically undesirable distal tipping. However, specific modifications to the pendulum appliance allow achievement of almost bodily molar distalization. Different outcomes are quoted in the studies for the efficiency of loaded spring systems for distal molar movement, but it seems that the first class appliance and the palatal distal jet are more efficient than the vestibular Jones Jig.
The studies identify anchorage loss as being found in the area of the incisors rather than the area of the first premolars. There was a trend for more substantial reciprocal side-effects to occur when only two teeth were included in the anchorage unit. Vertical components acting on the molars, premolars, and incisors, such as intrusion and extrusion, tended to be of secondary importance and, therefore, may be disregarded.