Download PDF
Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU 2018; 08(01): 03-010
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1708737
Original Article

Comparative Distalization Effects Of Conventional Pendulum Appliance And Bone Anchored Pendulum Appliance

Authors

  • Crystal Runa Soans

    1   Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka.

  • Ashutosh Shetty

    2   Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka.

  • Murali P.S

    3   Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka.

  • Azhar Mohammed

    4   Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka.

  • U.S Krishna Nayak

    5   Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka.

  • Keerthan Shashidhar

    6   Post Graduate, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka.
Further Information
Also available at
 PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction: The introduction of intraosseous screws as temporary orthodontic anchorage devices has proved successful in achieving sufficient molar distalization without major anchorage loss in Class II malocclusions. Bone-anchored pendulum appliance is used to obtain an effective and compliance-free molar distalization without anchorage loss.

Aims And Objectives: This prospective study was designed to evaluate and compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects produced by 2 types of pendulum appliance with different anchorage modalities - the Bone anchored pendulum appliance (BAPA) and Conventional pendulum appliance (CPA) in subjects with Angle's ClassII malocclusion.

Materials and Methods: BAPA group consisted of 5 patients with mean age, 16.4±1.5 years. The CPA group consisted of 5 patients with mean age, 16.6±1.1 years. Lateral cephalograms & dental casts were obtained at pre-treatment stage & after achieving Class I molar relation. Dentoalveolar, skeletal, soft tissue measurements and dental cast measurement were recorded & compared between the groups.

Results and Conclusions: Successful distalization was achieved in both groups in a mean period of 6.2 months for BAPA and 5.2 months for CPA. It was concluded that, both theBAPA and CPA were effective for the distalization of maxillary molars. Though the distal molar movements obtained were similar between the BAPA and the CPA groups, anchorage loss was observed with the CPA in the form of premolar mesialization & incisor proclination, whereas absence of anchorage loss, significant spontaneous distal premolar movement, and distal incisor movement was observed with the BAPA, making it a viable choice compared to the CPA.

Keywords

Angles Class II Malocclusion - Molar Distalization - Conventional Pendulum Appliance - Bone Anchored Pendulum Appliance


Publication History

Received: 22 July 2017

Accepted: 02 February 2018

Article published online:
20 April 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Haas AJ. Headgear therapy: the most efficient way to distalize molars. Semin Orthod. 2006; 6:79-90.
  • 2 Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for class II non-compliance therapy. J Clin Orthod. 1992; 26:700-713.
  • 3 Joseph AA, Butchard CJ. An evaluation of the pendulum distalizing appliance. Semin Orthod. 2000; 6:129–135.
  • 4 Gianelly AA. Distal movement of the maxillary molars. Am J Orthod. 1998; 114:66–72.
  • 5 Gelgor IE, Buyukyilmaz T, Karaman AI. Use of the intraosseous screw for unilateral upper molar distalization and found well balanced occlusion. Head and face medicine. 2006; 2:38-42.
  • 6 Gelgor IE, Buyukyilmaz T, Karaman AI. Comparison of 2 distalization systems supported by intraosseous screws. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop 2007; 131:161.e1-161.e8.
  • 7 Kircelli BH, Zafer OP, Kircelli C. Maxillary molar distalization with a bone-anchored pendulum appliance. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76: 650-9.
  • 8 Angelieri F, Rodrigues de Almeida R, Rodrigues de Almeida M, Fuziy A. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance followed by fixed orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2006; 129:520-7.
  • 9 Onçag G, Seçkin O, Dinçer B, Arikan F. Osseointegrated implants with pendulum springs for maxillary molar distalization: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2007; 131:16-26.
  • 10 Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J ClinOrthod. 1999; 31:763-767.
  • 11 Chiu PP, McNamara JA, Franchi I. A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: distal jet vs pendulum. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2005; 128:353-65.
  • 12 Fuziy A, Rodrigues de Almeida R, Janson G, Angelieri F, Pinzan A. Sagittal, vertical, and transverse changes consequent to maxillary molar distalization with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2006; 130:502-10.
  • 13 Patel MP, Janson G, Henriques JF, de Almeida RR, de Freitas MR, Pinzan A, de Freitas KM. Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig and pendulum appliances. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2009; 135:336-42.
  • 14 Fudalej P, Antoszewska J. Are orthodontic distalizers reinforced with the temporary skeletal anchorage devices effective? Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2011; 139:722-9.
  • 15 Costa A, Pasta G, Bergamaschi G. Intra oral hard and soft tissue depths for temporary anchorage devices. SeminOrthod. 2005; 11:10-15.
  • 16 Roberts WE, Smith RK, Silberman Y, Mozsary PG, Smith RS. Osseous adaptation to continuous loading of rigid endosseous implants. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 95-111.
  • 17 King KS, Lam EW, Faulkner MG, Hoe G, Major PW. Vertical bone volume in the paramedian palate of adolescents: A computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2007; 132:7388.
  • 18 Nalcaci R, Bicakci AA, Ozan F. Noncompliance screw supported maxillary molar distalization in a parallel manner. Korean J Orthod. 2010; 40: 250-259.
  • 19 Ngantung V, Nanda RS, Bowman SJ. Post treatment evaluation of the distal jet appliance. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2001; 120: 178-85.
  • 20 Burkhardt DR, McNamara JA Jr, Bacetti T. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and herbst appliances. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2003; 123: 108-16.
  • 21 Bussick TJ, McNamara JA. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dento facial Orthopedics. 2000 Mar 31;117(3):333-43.
  • 22 Wong AMK, Rabie ABM, Hagg u. The use of pendulum in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Br Dent J. 1999; 187:367-70.
  • 23 Patel MP, Janson G, Henriques JF, de Almeida RR, de Freitas MR, Pinzan A, de Freitas KM. Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig and pendulum appliances. Am J Orthod Dento facial Orthop. 2009; 135:336-42.