Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
World Journal of Orthodontics
WJO Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: ORTHODONTICS
ORTHODONTICS
The Art and Practice of Dentofacial Enhancement

Formerly World Journal of Orthodontics

Edited by
Rafi Romano, DMD, MSc (Editor-in-Chief)

ISSN 2160-2999 (print) / ISSN 2160-3006 (online)

Visit the ORTHODONTICS: The Art and Practice of Dentofacial Enhancement Facebook page

Publication:
Winter 2005
Volume 6 , Issue 4

Back
Share Abstract:

A COMPARISON OF TWO MAXILLARY MOLAR DISTALIZING APPLIANCES WITH THE DISTAL JET

Donald J. Ferguson, DMD, MSD / Aldo Carano, Dr Odont, MS, Spec Orthod2 / S. Jay Bowman, DMD, MSD3 / Edward C. Davis, DMD, MSD4 / Maria E. Gutierrez Vega, DDS, MSD5 / Sandra H. Lee, DDS, MSD6

Pages: 382390
PMID: 16379210

Aims: Previous studies on maxillary molar distalization have usually concentrated on only one appliance and featured small sample sizes. The purpose of this retrospective study was two-fold: (1) to determine the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of 3 molar distalization appliances, 2 of which do not depend upon patient compliance (ie, distal jet and Greenfield molar distalizing appliance) and 1 that does (ie, sagittal appliance combined with cervical headgear); and (2) to determine differences in treatment effects among the 3 appliances. Methods: Pretreatment and post-distalization cephalometric radiographs were obtained for each appliance (14 females and 11 males for the distal jet; 12 females and 13 males for the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance; and 17 females and 13 males for the sagittal appliance with headgear). Results: Pretreatment to transition evaluation showed significant distal movement of the first molars for the distal jet (3.4 mm), the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance (3.9 mm), and the sagittal appliance with headgear (2.1 mm). Distal tipping of the first molar was seen in all samples, but significantly more so in the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance (6.5 degrees 6.6) and the sagittal appliance with headgear (13.5 degrees 8.1) than in the distal jet (3.2 degrees 2.8). Conclusions: Maxillary molar distalization was effective using the distal jet, the Greenfield molar distalizing appliance, and the sagittal appliance with headgear, but better control of molar bodily movement was reported with the distal jet. World J Orthod 2005;6:382390.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files.
This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site
to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog