Combined therapy with pendulum and lingual arch appliances in the early mixed dentition

Efficiency of the skeletonized Pendulum K appliance for non-compliance maxillary molar distalization : A clinical pilot study

PURPOSE

Conventional anchorage with exclusively intraorally anchored appliances for non-compliance molar distalization combines a palatal acrylic button with periodontal anchorage. This type of anchorage is critically discussed because of the temporary hygienic impairment of the palate and the uncertain anchoring quality of the button. A purely dentally/periodontally anchored Pendulum K appliance was developed, which is exclusively anchored via four occlusal rests. The aims of this pilot study were to examine the suitability of the skeletonized Pendulum K for distalization of maxillary molars, and to investigate the quality of this alternative anchoring modality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 10 patients received skeletonized Pendulum K appliances attached to all maxillary premolars for bilateral molar distalization. Supporting anchorage through an acrylic button adjacent to the anterior palate was not used. The pendulum springs were initially activated on both sides with a distalization force of 220 cN each and provided with uprighting and toe-in bends. The specific force/moment system was regularly reactivated intraorally by adjustment of the distal screw.

RESULTS

The study demonstrates the suitability of the skeletonized Pendulum K appliance for the distalization of maxillary molars (3.28 ± 0.73 mm). Side effects on the molars were slight distal tipping (3.50 ± 2.51°/PP, 3.00 ± 1.41°/SN) and mesial inward rotation (average 2.75 ± 7.50° and 4.50 ± 12.77°). Significant anchorage loss occurred in the form of mesialization of the incisors by 1.40 ± 0.82 mm and of the first premolars by 2.28 ± 0.85 mm.

CONCLUSION

The skeletonized Pendulum K appliance allows compliance-free upper molar distalization. Exclusively dental/periodontal anchorage resulted in a lower percentage of molar distalization compared to a conventional anchoring preparation of the Pendulum K with a palatal acrylic button. Anchorage loss had a comparatively stronger effect on the anchoring premolars but less on the incisors. Typical side effects on the molars such as distal tipping and mesial inward rotation were remarkably low.

Distalization in Orthodontics: A Review and Case Series

Distalization is a conservative method that is utilized in orthodontics to gain space by moving posterior teeth distally. It may be combined with other space gaining strategies, such as expansion, or can be used alone. Many methods have been used for distalization. These methods differ significantly in their place, whether to be extraoral or intraoral, site of action in upper and/or lower arch, and cooperation needed by the patient if it is removable or fixed. This review illustrates some of the most commonly used methods for distalization with a brief presentation of three cases that incorporated successful distalization techniques.

Evaluation of Skeletal and Dental Effects of Lower Lingual Arches

OBJECTIVE

A lower lingual arch is usually recommended as a holding device to maintain arch length and to prevent mesial migration of the mandibular first molars. Despite its widespread use, comparatively little is known about the effects of a lower lingual holding arch on preservation of lower arch dimensions and tooth position and the impact of the device on mandibular growth. The aim of this study is to evaluate the skeletal and dental effects of the lower lingual holding arch with regard to arch dimension, positions of mandibular molars and incisors, and usual mandibular growth.

STUDY DESIGN

Thirty-four children (18 males and 16 females) who needed space maintainers were included in the present study. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they were missing second primary molars on one or both sides. Group I comprised 16 children (8 males and 8 females, average age 8.8 ± 0.9 years) with a missing second primary molar on one side; Group II comprised 18 children (10 males and 8 females, average age 8 ± 0.7 years) with extractions on both sides. Lateral cephalograms, dental pantomograms, and study casts of the patients were taken at the beginning and the end of the study period. Average treatment time was 20.4 ± 4 months.

RESULTS

Lower incisors moved forward and Incisor Mandibular Plane Angle (IMPA°) increased in both treatment groups. Statistically significant differences between the groups were found when comparing pre-treatment and post-treatment arch dimension and position of mandibular molars. Results were better for lingual arches with extraction on one side than with extraction on both sides Conclusions: A lingual arch seems to be an effective tool for maintaining arch length, and was not found to impair mandibular growth.

Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

When orthodontic treatment is provided with fixed appliances, it is sometimes necessary to move the upper molar teeth backwards (distalise) to create space or help to overcome anchorage requirements. This can be achieved with the use of extraoral or intraoral appliances. The most common appliance is extraoral headgear, which requires considerable patient co-operation. Further, reports of serious injuries have been published. Intraoral appliances have been developed to overcome such shortcomings. The comparative effects of extraoral and intraoral appliances have not been fully evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 10 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 10 December 2012). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials involving the use of removable or fixed orthodontic appliances intended to distalise upper first molars in children and adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify the inclusion criteria of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies, reporting data from 354 participants, were included in this review, the majority of which were carried out in a university dental hospital setting. The studies were published between 2005 and 2011 and were conducted in Europe and in Brazil. The age range of participants was from nine to 15 years, with an even distribution of males and females in seven of the studies, and a slight predominance of female patients in three of the studies. The quality of the studies was generally poor; seven studies were at an overall high risk of bias, three studies were at an unclear risk of bias, and we judged no study to be at low risk of bias.We carried out random-effects meta-analyses as appropriate for the primary clinical outcomes of movement of upper first molars (mm), and loss of anterior anchorage, where there were sufficient data reported in the primary studies. Four studies, involving 159 participants, compared a distalising appliance to an untreated control. Meta-analyses were not undertaken for all primary outcomes due to incomplete reporting of all summary statistics, expected outcomes, and differences between the types of appliances. The degree and direction of molar movement and loss of anterior anchorage varied with the type of appliance. Four studies, involving 150 participants, compared a distalising appliance versus headgear. The mean molar movement for intraoral distalising appliances was -2.20 mm and -1.04 mm for headgear. There was a statistically significant difference in mean distal molar movement (mean difference (MD) -1.45 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to -0.15) favouring intraoral appliances compared to headgear (four studies, high or unclear risk of bias, 150 participants analysed). However, a statistically significant difference in mean mesial upper incisor movement (MD 1.82 mm; 95% CI 1.39 to 2.24) and overjet (fixed-effect: MD 1.64 mm; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.02; two studies, unclear risk of bias, 70 participants analysed) favoured headgear, i.e. there was less loss of anterior anchorage with headgear. We reported direct comparisons of intraoral appliances narratively due to the variation in interventions (three studies, high or unclear risk of bias, 93 participants randomised). All appliances were reported to provide some degree of distal movement, and loss of anterior anchorage varied with the type of appliance.No included studies reported on the incidence of adverse effects (harm, injury), number of attendances or rate of non-compliance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that intraoral appliances are more effective than headgear in distalising upper first molars. However, this effect is counteracted by loss of anterior anchorage, which was not found to occur with headgear when compared with intraoral distalising appliance in a small number of studies. The number of trials assessing the effects of orthodontic treatment for distilisation is low, and the current evidence is of low or very low quality.

Effects of conventional anchorage on premolar root development during treatment with a pendulum appliance

OBJECTIVE

By metrically analyzing orthopantomograms, we aimed in this study to retrospectively investigate whether maxillary premolars used as anchoring teeth during molar distalization with pendulum appliances would reveal inhibited root development.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The upper molars were distalized with a modified pendulum appliance (Pendulum K) in 36 adolescents (14 males, 22 females, mean age 12.3 years). Mean treatment period was 19.5 weeks. Orthopantomograms of each patient were taken at the start (time point T1) and after completion of molar distalization (time point T2). The enlargement of the posterior region was ascertained individually quadrant by quadrant for each radiograph, followed by measurement of the vestibular tooth lengths of the premolars whose root development was for the most part not yet complete. To assess further root development in the premolar region, the differences were calculated between tooth lengths at the start and end of treatment.

RESULTS

During treatment with the pendulum appliance a general increase in tooth lengths in the anchorage region was observed (1.37 +/- 1.70 mm, p<0.0001). Differentiated by dental age, we noted increases in tooth lengths of patients with second molars in the budding stage (patient group PG 1: 0.93 +/- 1.37 mm, p<0.0001) as well as of patients with fully-erupted second molars (patient group PG 2: 1.81 +/- 1.88 mm, p<0.0001). Both groups demonstrated greater increases in the second premolars than the first premolars; the increases group-wise were larger in PG 2 than PG 1. However, both the group comparison (PG 1 versus PG 2) and the side comparison (right versus left) (differentiated into first and second molars) showed no statistically relevant differences. Visual assessment of the radiographs revealed no evidence of treatment-related root deviations.

CONCLUSION

A highly complex system of forces acts on the anchoring teeth during molar distalization with the conventionally-anchored Pendulum K. However, the Pendulum K appliance's specific biomechanics make it possible to transfer the reactive forces and moments to the anchorage unit so that they remain within the physiological range, allowing uninhibited premolar root development. This also applies after completed eruption of the second molars, when the treatment period and hence duration of exposure to the active and reactive forces and moments arising during molar distalization are comparatively increased.

Noncompliance maxillary molar distalization with the first class appliance: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment effects of the First Class Appliance (FCA) (Leone, Firenze, Italy) used for the distalization of maxillary first molars in patients with Class II malocclusion and mixed dentition.

METHODS

According to the results of the power analysis for sample size calculation, 32 consecutive patients with bilateral Class II molar relationships were initially included in the study. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 26 patients remained for the final evaluation. They were randomized into 2 groups: treatment group (n = 15) and untreated control group (n = 11). Lateral cephalograms and dental casts were obtained before and immediately after distalization for the treatment group, and initially and approximately 22 weeks later for the control group. Statistical evaluation of the variables included the mixed 2-way analysis of variance at P <0.05. The method error was also estimated.

RESULTS

The mean treatment period to achieve a full Class I molar relationship was 17.2 weeks. Analysis of the data showed significant distalization of the maxillary first molars produced by the FCA (mean: 4.00 mm) when compared with the untreated group (mean: 0.95 mm). The rate of molar movement was 1.00 mm per month, which, however, was associated with distal tipping of the first molars (8.56 degrees ) and anchorage loss of the anterior dental unit in terms of overjet increase (0.68 mm), and mesial movement (1.86 mm) and inclination (1.85 degrees ) of the first premolars or first deciduous molars. The maxillary first molars also moved buccally (1.37 mm), but no significant distal rotation occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The FCA is an efficient noncompliance appliance to distalize molars in the mixed dentition without distal rotations. However, these movements are associated with distal molar tipping and anchorage loss of the anterior teeth.

Effects of unilateral molar distalization with a modified pendulum appliance

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate skeletal and dentoalveolar changes due to unilateral distalization and to determine side effects.

METHODS

Cephalograms and dental casts before and after distal movement of the maxillary molars with pendulum appliances in 15 consecutively treated patients (5 girls and 10 boys, 12.06 +/- 1.32 years), were included in this study. The duration of distalization was 8.46 +/- 2.23 months.

RESULTS

Cephalometric analysis showed no remarkable growth between the 2 measurement times. The mean value for distalization of the first molars was 3.83 +/- 1.09 mm, with distal tipping of 6.45 degrees . The maxillary second molars were also moved distally 2.83 +/- 1.32 mm and tipped distally 14.7 degrees . No significant changes in the position of the third molars were measured. The mean reciprocal mesial movement of the premolars was 1.18 +/- 1.31 mm, with distal tipping of 1.94 degrees . The incisors moved 0.84 +/- 0.79 mm mesially, with mesial tipping of 0.02 degrees and extrusion of 1.21 mm. There was also a significant influence on the contralateral anchorage unit. However, unilateral distalization reduced incisor proclination and induced moderate distal movement of the contralateral anchorage unit based on rotation around a virtual axis perpendicular to the Nance button.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective distal molar movement and less anchorage loss at the front teeth are advantages of unilateral distalization.

Biomechanics of a modified Pendulum appliance--theoretical considerations and in vitro analysis of the force systems

The aim of this study was to analyse the acting forces and moments induced by a special orthodontic appliance, the Pendulum K, for molar distalization in the transverse and sagittal planes. The purpose-designed test set-up (artificial maxilla with anchorage unit and two electrothermodynamic molars, an electronic measuring unit, a unit with force-moment sensor, an analogue/digital converter, and a data read-out unit) allowed simulation of in vivo conditions on the one hand and precise determination of the force systems on the other. The appliances investigated were three specimens of the Pendulum K. In vitro measurement of the resulting force systems revealed that the forces and moments in the transverse and sagittal planes remained almost constant over a 3 mm measuring increment when the distal screw was continuously activated (10 activations/mm). Without reactivation of the incorporated distal screw, however, a marked decline in the force systems was recorded. The Pendulum K allows translatory distalization of the upper molars and thus dental arch expansion, dispensing with the need for permanent teeth to be extracted, subject to a corresponding indication. This is achieved by continuous adjustment of an incorporated distal screw and by specific pre-activations of the Pendulum springs.

Molar distalization with pendulum appliances in the mixed dentition: Effects on the position of unerupted canines and premolars

INTRODUCTION

The pendulum appliance allows for rapid molar distalization without the need for patient compliance. Its efficiency has been confirmed in a number of clinical studies. However, the potential interactions and positional changes between the deciduous molars used for dental anchorage and the erupted and unerupted permanent teeth have yet to be clarified when this appliance is used for molar distalization in the mixed dentition.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients in the mixed dentition each received a modified pendulum appliance with a distal screw and a preactivated pendulum spring for bilateral distalization of the maxillary molars. The patients were divided into 4 groups based on dentition stages: patient group 1 (PG 1, n = 10) was in the early mixed dentition; patients had resorption of the distal root areas of the deciduous molars being used for dental anchorage, and the unerupted premolars were located at the distal margin of the deciduous molar root region. Based on radiographs taken before placement of the pendulum appliance, patient group 2 (PG 2, n = 10) was diagnosed as having a central location of the unerupted premolars. In the third group (PG 3, n = 4), the first premolars were already erupted and could be integrated into the dental anchorage, but the canines were not yet erupted. In the fourth group (PG 4, n = 5), the first premolars and both canines were fully erupted.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis of the measured results showed significant differences in the side effects between PG 1 and PG 2. In patients being treated with pendulum appliances, the anchorage quality of the deciduous molars that were already partially resorbed in the distal root area was comparatively reduced. Consequently, the mesial drift of the deciduous molars and incisors was increased, without impairing the extent and quality of the molar distalization. Anchorage loss in the supporting area had no direct impact on the sagittal position of the unerupted premolars in the early mixed dentition.

CONCLUSIONS

If permanent teeth have already started to erupt in the supporting area, additional space restrictions should be avoided in patients with critical topography, especially if there is little space for the unerupted canines. At this stage of the mixed dentition, premolar extraction or augmentation of the supporting area with extraoral headgear offers a therapeutic alternative to intraoral distalization appliances with exclusively dental anchorage.