The frog appliance for upper molar distalization: a case report

Abstract

The purpose of this article was to evaluate the effects of a new upper molar distalization system, the Frog Appliance, on dentofacial structures in a Class II, division 1 patient. An 11-year-old girl was referred to our clinic for orthodontic treatment. She had a mild skeletal Class II malocclusion with Class II molar and canine relationship on both sides. The treatment plan included distalization of the upper first molars bilaterally followed by full fixed appliance therapy. For the upper molar distalization, a new system, the Frog Appliance, was constructed and applied. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were used to evaluate the treatment results. Distalization of the upper first molars was achieved in four months successfully, and Class I molar relationship was obtained. Total treatment time was 16 months. According to the results of the cephalometric evaluation, a nearly bodily distal molar movement with a slight anchorage loss was attained.In conclusion, the Frog Appliance was found to be a simple, effective, non-invasive, and compliance-free intraoral distalization appliance for achieving bilateral molar distalization.

Combined treatment with headgear and the Frog appliance for maxillary molar distalization: a randomized controlled trial

“…These differences may be due to the differences in appliance design and in the point of force application relative to the center of resistance of the molars. However, the molar tipping found in the current study was greater than that in the studies by Bayram et al21 and Bolla et al1 (3.00° with the Frog appliance and 3.10° with the distal jet). In addition to the difference in appliance design, these differences may have resulted from differences in the extent of molar distalization.…”

“…Our displacement values were similar to those obtained by Chiu et al22 and Bussick and McNamara23 using the pendulum appliance (6.10 mm and 5.70 mm, respectively). However, our values were greater than those obtained by Bayram et al21 with the Frog appliance (4.00 mm), Bondemark and Karlsson2 with headgear (1.00 mm), and Patel et al24 with the Jones jig appliance (3.20 mm). These differences may be due to the longer duration of the present treatment as well as its endpoint (the attainment of overcorrection).…”

“…A review of the orthodontic literature reveals the lack of studies that have tested the efficiency of the Frog appliance, with only one case report published 21. Another study presented 2 case reports for the application of a modified Frog appliance, the so-called skeletal Frog appliance 16.…”

Sinif Ii Di̇vi̇zyon 1 Malokluzyona Sahi̇p Bi̇r Hastanin Servi̇kal Headgear Ve Sabi̇t Ortodonti̇k Apareyler İle Tedavi̇si̇: Olgu Sunumu

“…Günümüzde ortodonti çekimsiz tedavilere doğru yöneldiğinden molar distalizasyonu mekanikleri ve tedavi modelleri sıklıkla tercih edilmektedir 18 . Molar distalizasyonu ağız içi ya da ağız dışı mekaniklerle yapılabilmektedir.…”

Zygoma-gear appliance for intraoral upper molar distalization

“…To overcome these anchorage problems, skeletal anchorage units applied to palatal regions, for example, osteointegrated implants, miniscrews, and Graz type implant were combined with these tooth and tissue supported intraoral appliances. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Although anchorage loss has been eliminated in this way, different problems related with the proximity between the implant and the roots of teeth or the presence of a bulky acrylic Nance appliance behind the upper incisors may become a problem during the retraction of anterior teeth. The zygomatic process of the maxilla is another appropriate region for skeletal anchorage.…”