Cassio Bernard Alves Campos, Lorena Vilanova, Luiz Eduardo Alessio Junior, Felicia Miranda, Daniela Garib, José Fernando Castanha Henriques
{"title":"II级矫治用微螺钉锚定悬臂摆矫治器对磨牙远端牙骨骼的影响。","authors":"Cassio Bernard Alves Campos, Lorena Vilanova, Luiz Eduardo Alessio Junior, Felicia Miranda, Daniela Garib, José Fernando Castanha Henriques","doi":"10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.11.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the dental and skeletal changes promoted by the miniscrew-anchored cantilever and pendulum appliance for Class II correction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study involved 52 patients with Class II malocclusion divided into 2 groups according to the treatment received: the miniscrew group (MG) with 23 patients (14 females and 9 males; mean initial age of 12.42 years) treated using the miniscrew-anchored cantilever, and the pendulum group (PG) with 29 patients (21 females and 8 males; mean initial age of 13.60 years) treated using the pendulum appliance. Lateral cephalograms and digital dental models were obtained and analyzed in 2 phases: pretreatment and postdistalization. Intergroup comparisons were performed using t test, Mann-Whitney test, and multivariate analysis of covariance test for covariates (P <0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups exhibited similar molar distalization (3.25 ± 1.68 mm for MG and 2.90 ± 2.17 mm for PG). The MG showed distalization of premolars (2.03 ± 2.09 mm) and incisors (1.70 ± 2.27 mm), whereas the PG exhibited mesialization of premolars (3.24 ± 2.01 mm) and incisors (2.30 ± 2.60 mm). A greater distal rotation (20.20° ± 5.73° for MG and 4.26° ± 6.41° for PG; P <0.001) and smaller distal angulation (8.55° ± 3.75° for MG and 14.36° ± 5.67° for PG; P <0.001) of the maxillary first molar was observed in the MG when compared with the PG.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both devices were effective for Class II molar distalization. The miniscrew-anchored cantilever was able to control the side effects of mesialization in the incisors and premolars during distalization when compared with distalization with a pendulum appliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":50806,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dentoskeletal effects of molar distalization with miniscrew-anchored cantilever and pendulum appliance for Class II correction.\",\"authors\":\"Cassio Bernard Alves Campos, Lorena Vilanova, Luiz Eduardo Alessio Junior, Felicia Miranda, Daniela Garib, José Fernando Castanha Henriques\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.11.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the dental and skeletal changes promoted by the miniscrew-anchored cantilever and pendulum appliance for Class II correction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study involved 52 patients with Class II malocclusion divided into 2 groups according to the treatment received: the miniscrew group (MG) with 23 patients (14 females and 9 males; mean initial age of 12.42 years) treated using the miniscrew-anchored cantilever, and the pendulum group (PG) with 29 patients (21 females and 8 males; mean initial age of 13.60 years) treated using the pendulum appliance. Lateral cephalograms and digital dental models were obtained and analyzed in 2 phases: pretreatment and postdistalization. Intergroup comparisons were performed using t test, Mann-Whitney test, and multivariate analysis of covariance test for covariates (P <0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups exhibited similar molar distalization (3.25 ± 1.68 mm for MG and 2.90 ± 2.17 mm for PG). The MG showed distalization of premolars (2.03 ± 2.09 mm) and incisors (1.70 ± 2.27 mm), whereas the PG exhibited mesialization of premolars (3.24 ± 2.01 mm) and incisors (2.30 ± 2.60 mm). A greater distal rotation (20.20° ± 5.73° for MG and 4.26° ± 6.41° for PG; P <0.001) and smaller distal angulation (8.55° ± 3.75° for MG and 14.36° ± 5.67° for PG; P <0.001) of the maxillary first molar was observed in the MG when compared with the PG.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both devices were effective for Class II molar distalization. The miniscrew-anchored cantilever was able to control the side effects of mesialization in the incisors and premolars during distalization when compared with distalization with a pendulum appliance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.11.011\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.11.011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Dentoskeletal effects of molar distalization with miniscrew-anchored cantilever and pendulum appliance for Class II correction.
Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare the dental and skeletal changes promoted by the miniscrew-anchored cantilever and pendulum appliance for Class II correction.
Methods: This retrospective study involved 52 patients with Class II malocclusion divided into 2 groups according to the treatment received: the miniscrew group (MG) with 23 patients (14 females and 9 males; mean initial age of 12.42 years) treated using the miniscrew-anchored cantilever, and the pendulum group (PG) with 29 patients (21 females and 8 males; mean initial age of 13.60 years) treated using the pendulum appliance. Lateral cephalograms and digital dental models were obtained and analyzed in 2 phases: pretreatment and postdistalization. Intergroup comparisons were performed using t test, Mann-Whitney test, and multivariate analysis of covariance test for covariates (P <0.05).
Results: Both groups exhibited similar molar distalization (3.25 ± 1.68 mm for MG and 2.90 ± 2.17 mm for PG). The MG showed distalization of premolars (2.03 ± 2.09 mm) and incisors (1.70 ± 2.27 mm), whereas the PG exhibited mesialization of premolars (3.24 ± 2.01 mm) and incisors (2.30 ± 2.60 mm). A greater distal rotation (20.20° ± 5.73° for MG and 4.26° ± 6.41° for PG; P <0.001) and smaller distal angulation (8.55° ± 3.75° for MG and 14.36° ± 5.67° for PG; P <0.001) of the maxillary first molar was observed in the MG when compared with the PG.
Conclusions: Both devices were effective for Class II molar distalization. The miniscrew-anchored cantilever was able to control the side effects of mesialization in the incisors and premolars during distalization when compared with distalization with a pendulum appliance.
期刊介绍:
Published for more than 100 years, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics remains the leading orthodontic resource. It is the official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, the American Board of Orthodontics, and the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics. Each month its readers have access to original peer-reviewed articles that examine all phases of orthodontic treatment. Illustrated throughout, the publication includes tables, color photographs, and statistical data. Coverage includes successful diagnostic procedures, imaging techniques, bracket and archwire materials, extraction and impaction concerns, orthognathic surgery, TMJ disorders, removable appliances, and adult therapy.