Palatal implant versus zygoma plate anchorage for distalization of maxillary posterior teeth

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of the implant-supported pendulum (ISP) and the zygoma anchorage system (ZAS) used for the distalization of maxillary posterior teeth. Among 30 patients showing Angle class II malocclusion, 15 patients with a mean age of 14.3±1.6 years and treated with ISP were included in the first group; 15 patients with a mean age of 14.7±2.5 years and treated with ZAS were included in the second group. The predistalization and postdistalization lateral cephalograms were analysed. Statistical evaluation was carried out using SPSS. Point A and upper incisors protruded in the ISP group, retruded in the ZAS group. Upper posterior teeth were distalized in both groups, but more in the ZAS group. Significant differences were observed between the groups for the sagittal movements of Point A, incisors, and posterior teeth. Overbite decreased in the ISP group, overjet decreased in the ZAS group, upper and lower lips retruded only in the ZAS group. Both methods provided absolute anchorage for distalization of posterior teeth, but the skeletal and soft tissue outcome and distalization obtained was greater in the ZAS group. Both methods can be used as alternatives to extraoral traction and conventional molar distalization appliances with different patient requirements.

Current Status of Skeletal Anchorage Dental Applications in Orthodontics, Part I

“…Retraction or distalization of the entire dental arch is also possible by means of miniplates that are fixed to the jaw in a position above the roots (maxilla), by temporary anchorage devices placed in the palate, by any type of SA positioned distally to the mandibular teeth, by tipping movement of the dentition and temporary anchorage devices placed between roots (this approach allows for only limited distal tipping of teeth and not true distalization), or by multiple stages and repositioning of miniscrews between roots after distalization of some teeth has been achieved.…”

Evaluation of the effects of the hybrid Pendulum in comparison with the conventional Pendulum appliance

“…4,5 The conventional Pendulum appliance of Hilgers 6 has been modified several times with miniscrews to overcome the side effects caused by occlusal rests on the premolars. [1][2][3][7][8][9][10] In most of these previous studies, the Pendulum appliance was supported with two miniscrews inserted to anterior paramedian region. 1,3,[7][8][9][10] There were a few studies using one miniscrew and without occlusal rests on the premolars.…”

“…[1][2][3][7][8][9][10] In most of these previous studies, the Pendulum appliance was supported with two miniscrews inserted to anterior paramedian region. 1,3,[7][8][9][10] There were a few studies using one miniscrew and without occlusal rests on the premolars. 2,3 Despite several studies evaluating bone supported Pendulum appliances in the literature, [1][2][3][7][8][9][10] there was no study with a tooth-and bone-supported (hybrid) Pendulum appliance.…”

“…1,3,[7][8][9][10] There were a few studies using one miniscrew and without occlusal rests on the premolars. 2,3 Despite several studies evaluating bone supported Pendulum appliances in the literature, [1][2][3][7][8][9][10] there was no study with a tooth-and bone-supported (hybrid) Pendulum appliance. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the anchorage control and distalization of maxillary molars with a hybrid Pendulum appliance and to compare the results with a conventional Pendulum appliance.…”

Análise de elementos finitos da distalização do primeiro molar superior com barra transpalatina ancorada em microparafusos ortodônticos

“…Vários aparelhos e técnicas de distalização do molar superior, que diminuem ou eliminam a necessidade de colaboração do paciente para a movimentação do molar, já foram propostos (2,5,6,7,8). Apesar de demonstrarem eficácia na distalização do molar superior, todos apresentam efeitos colaterais ou características inerentes a cada técnica que podem ser vistas como desvantajosas, quando comparadas aos outros métodos (2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20). Por este motivo, quando o clínico escolhe um método de distalização, sua decisão parece ser em parte baseada em informações técnicas e em parte por preferência pessoal e esta escolha pode ser fortemente influenciada por sua análise de viabilidade clínica, ou seja, se em sua opinião este dispositivo é o que melhor se adequa à sua prática diária.…”