Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance

Abstract

Aim. To investigate and compare the efficiency of two appliances for molar distalization: the bone-anchored distal screw (DS) and the traditional tooth-supported distal jet (DJ) for molar distalization and anchorage loss. Methods. Tests (18 subjects) were treated with a DS and controls (18 subjects) were treated with a DJ. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before and at the end of molar distalization and were analysed. Shapiro Wilk test, unpaired t-test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were applied according to values distribution. The α level was fixed at 0.05. Results. Maxillary first molars were successfully distalized into a Class I relationship in all patients. The mean molar distalization and treatment time were similar in both groups. The DS group exhibited a spontaneous distalization (2.1 ± 0.9 mm) of the first premolar with control of anchorage loss, distal tipping, extrusion, and skeletal changes. Conclusions. The DS is an adequate compliance-free distalizing appliance that can be used safely for the correction of Class II malocclusions. In comparison to the traditional DJ, the DS enables not only a good rate of molar distalization, but also a spontaneous distalization of the first premolars.

Comparison between direct vs indirect anchorage in two miniscrew-supported distalizing devices

“…However, comparisons between interradicular vs paramedian miniscrew insertion techniques are still lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the dentoalveolar and skeletal changes between the MGBM System (MGBM) 11,12 (interradicular miniscrews placement) and the Distal Screw appliance (DS) 13,14 (paramedian miniscrews) in dental Class II patients. The null hypothesis was that both appliances would result in similar dental and skeletal changes.…”

Various Contemporary Intraoral Anchorage Mechanics Supported with Temporary Anchorage Devices

“…Implant-Supported Distal Jet can be safely used in dental Class II patients who have cooperation problems. Besides molar distalization, spontaneous premolar distalization of the first premolars can be achieved using this device (16).…”

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

“…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.…”

“…10 In searching the literature, there were a few systematic reviews 12,13 and a meta-analysis 14 conducted on the success rate and anchorage quality of miniscrew implants. Except for several studies that showed the effectiveness of the miniscrew-supported appliance in molar distalization, 6,7,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] there was no systematic review synthesizing the evidence for the use of a miniscrew in molar distalization. To address this, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate the quantitative effects of the miniscrewsupported appliance in maxillary molar distalization in Class II malocclusion.…”