2007Chinese Journal of Aesthetic MedicineRequires access

Comparison of distalizing maxillary molar by implant anchorage and pendulum appliance

Xin Yan

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective To evaluate characters of micro-implant anchorage and pendulum appliance during maxillary molars distalization in Class II malocclusal patients. Methods 28 patients were divided into two groups equally. Measuring position changes of maxillary molars from 4 aspects and implant anchorage loss by maxillary central incisor. Results In implant anchorage group: the velocity of maxillary first molar distalizing was 1.2 mm per month, distal tipping 4.6°,buccal move 1.6mm, horizontal rotation 4.9°;maxillary central incisor do not move. In pendulum appliance group: the velocity of maxillary first molar distalizing was 0.8mm per month, distal tipping 12.6°,buccal move 0.5mm, horizontal rotation 2.8°; maxillary central incisor move mesially 0.5mm. Conclusion Two methods successfully distalized maxillary molars to appropriate positions. But implant anchorage is stronger than another. Then move mode of maxillary molar differenciate from each other.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective To evaluate characters of micro-implant anchorage and pendulum appliance during maxillary molars distalization in Class II malocclusal patients. Methods 28 patients were divided into two groups equally. Measuring position changes of maxillary molars from 4 aspects and implant anchorage loss by maxillary central incisor. Results In implant anchorage group: the velocity of maxillary first molar distalizing was 1.2 mm per month, distal tipping 4.6°,buccal move 1.6mm, horizontal rotation 4.9°;maxillary central incisor do not move. In pendulum appliance group: the velocity of maxillary first molar distalizing was 0.8mm per month, distal tipping 12.6°,buccal move 0.5mm, horizontal rotation 2.8°; maxillary central incisor move mesially 0.5mm. Conclusion Two methods successfully distalized maxillary molars to appropriate positions. But implant anchorage is stronger than another. Then move mode of maxillary molar differenciate from each other.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective To evaluate characters of micro-implant anchorage and pendulum appliance during maxillary molars distalization in Class II malocclusal patients. Methods 28 patients were divided into two groups equally. Measuring position changes of maxillary molars from 4 aspects and implant anchorage loss by maxillary central incisor. Results In implant anchorage group: the velocity of maxillary first molar distalizing was 1.2 mm per month, distal tipping 4.6°,buccal move 1.6mm, horizontal rotation 4.9°;maxillary central incisor do not move. In pendulum appliance group: the velocity of maxillary first molar distalizing was 0.8mm per month, distal tipping 12.6°,buccal move 0.5mm, horizontal rotation 2.8°; maxillary central incisor move mesially 0.5mm. Conclusion Two methods successfully distalized maxillary molars to appropriate positions. But implant anchorage is stronger than another. Then move mode of maxillary molar differenciate from each other.

Key concepts: Molar, Maxillary molar, Implant, Orthodontics, Dentistry, Maxillary incisor, Maxillary central incisor, Medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of distalizing maxillary molar by implant anchorage and pendulum appliance — Research Paper | ScholarLens