Cephalometric effects of the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion treatment

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to cephalometrically assess the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Class II malocclusion treatment performed with the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances.MethodsThe sample comprised 25 patients with Class II malocclusion treated with the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances, at a mean initial age of 12.90 years old. The mean time of the entire orthodontic treatment was 3.89 years. The distalization phase lasted for 0.85 years, after which the fixed appliance was used for 3.04 years. Cephalograms were used at initial (T1), post-distalization (T2) and final phases of treatment (T3). For intragroup comparison of the three phases evaluated, dependent ANOVA and Tukey tests were used.ResultsJones Jig appliance did not interfere in the maxillary and mandibular component and did not change maxillomandibular relationship. Jones Jig appliance promoted distalization of first molars with anchorage loss, mesialization and significant extrusion of first and second premolars, as well as a significant increase in anterior face height at the end of treatment. The majority of adverse effects that occur during intraoral distalization are subsequently corrected during corrective mechanics. Buccal inclination and protrusion of mandibular incisors were identified. By the end of treatment, correction of overjet and overbite was observed.ConclusionsJones Jig appliance promoted distalization of first molars with anchorage loss represented by significant mesial movement and extrusion of first and second premolars, in addition to a significant increase in anterior face height.

Sagittal, rotational and transverse changes with three intraoral distalization force systems: Jones jig, distal jet and first class

“…Previous studies evaluated the dentoskeletal effects of distalizers by means of cephalometric analysis after distalization ( 11 , 20 ) and after orthodontic treatment ( 21 ). However, few studies ( 12 , 22 ) evaluated the rotational and transversal dental changes induced by these appliances, especially using distalizers with different sites of force application.…”

Comparison of dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with Jones Jig appliance and with maxillary first premolar extractions

“…Eight patients had one quarter-cusp Class II molar relationship, eight had one half-cusp Class II molar relationship and five had three-quarter Class II molar relationship. 16 Molar relationship was corrected with the Jones Jig appliance, as described by Patel et al 17 The original stainless steel coil spring was changed to a Nitinol coil spring (G&H Wire Co, Greenwood, Ind) to apply continuous force. The coil spring was activated 5 mm every four weeks, to deliver 120 grams (0.12N) of force, in average.…”

Maxillary molar distalization with miniscrew-supported appliances in Class II malocclusion: A systematic review

“…Maxillary molar distalization is the most frequently used nonextraction treatment in the correction of Class II malocclusion to establish a Class I molar and canine relationships. Distalization of the molars may be achieved either by extraoral 1,2 or intraoral 3 forces. The main disadvantages with extraoral anchorage is the need for patient compliance and it is esthetically unacceptable.…”

“…The main disadvantages with extraoral anchorage is the need for patient compliance and it is esthetically unacceptable. 1,2 To overcome these limitations, many intraoral methods were used to distalize molars such as the use of magnets, 4 pendulum appliance, 5 distal jet appliance, 6,7 nickel-titanium open coil springs 3,4 and several other methods. The common and unwanted side effect of these intraoral methods is the mesial shift of premolars and incisors leading to anchorage loss.…”