Maxillary molar distalization with MGBM-system in class II malocclusion

Abstract

Aims:Objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the treatment effects of the MGBM-System (G.B Maino, A. Giannelly, R. Bernard, P. Mura), a new intraoral device to treat Class II malocclusionsMaterials and Methods:A retrospective study was conducted to compare the pre-distalization and post-distalization cephalograms and dental model casts of 30 patients (15 male, 15 female) with Class II malocclusion treated with MGBM-System. Mean age at the beginning of treatment was 13.3 years (standard deviation 3.3). Angular, horizontal and vertical measurements were recorded to monitor skeletal and dental-alveolar changes. Molar movements in horizontal plane were monitored by making dental measurements on dental model casts.Results:The MGBM-System produced a rapid molar distalization and Class II relationship was corrected in 8 months ± 2.05, on average. The maxillary first molars were distalized of 4.14 (PTV-6 cemento-enamel junction), associated with a significant distal axis incline of 10. 5° referred to SN and a significant intrusion of 1.3 mm (PP). As for anchorage loss, the first premolar exhibited a significant mesial movement of 0.86 mm, associated with a significant mesial axis incline of 2.46°. No significative changes in either sagittal or vertical skeletal relationship were observed.Conclusion:The results suggest that the MGBM-System is an efficient and reliable device for distalizing the maxillary permanent first and second molars.

Comparison of transverse dental changes induced by the palatally applied Frog appliance and buccally applied Karad's integrated distalizing system

“…However, transverse discrepancies may exist in conjunction with rotational discrepancies, and few studies have evaluated the nature and extent of transverse changes during molar distalization. 12 13 14 …”

En-masse Distalization of Maxillary Arch with Modified Hybrid Hyrax Appliance: A Case Report

“…The average tooth movement achieved by commonly used intraoral distalizing appliances was 71% molar distalization, and 29% loss of reciprocal anchorage. 7…”

“…The average tooth movement achieved by commonly used intraoral distalizing appliances was 71% molar distalization, and 29% loss of reciprocal anchorage. 7 Recently, intraoral molar distalization devices supported by implants have been developed to offer adequate anchorage and lessen these side effects. 8,9 To minimize the surgical invasiveness in pure bone borne appliances, Wilmes and colleagues introduced the Hybrid Hyrax Distalizer, a new appliance for Class III malocclusion treatment that helps facilitate both palatal expansion and molar distalization.…”