Sagittal, rotational and transverse changes with three intraoral distalization force systems: Jones jig, distal jet and first class.

BACKGROUND: To compare the maxillary dentoalveolar changes of patients treated with three distalization force systems: Jones Jig, Distal Jet and First Class appliances, using digitized models. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective sample comprised 118 digitized models of 59 patients with Class II malocclusion divided into three groups: Group 1 consisted of 22 patients treated with the Jones Jig appliance; Group 2 consisted of 20 patients treated with the Distal Jet, and Group 3 comprised 17 patients treated with the First Class appliance. Pretreatment and post-distalization plaster models of all patients were digitized and evaluated with OrthoAnalyzerTM software. The pretreatment and post-distalization variables regarding sagittal, rotational and transverse changes were compared by the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests, depending on normality. RESULTS: All appliances presented similar amounts of distalization. The Distal Jet appliance promoted significantly smaller mesial displacement of premolars and greater expansion of posterior teeth. The First Class presented the smallest rotation of the maxillary molars and treatment time. CONCLUSIONS: The distalizers were effective in correcting Class II molar relationship, however, a palatal force seems to provide fewer undesirable effects. Additionally, the degree of rotation and expansion was associated with the side of force application. Key words:Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Orthodontics, Corrective, Distalizers.

Stability of Class II malocclusion treatment with the distal jet followed by fixed appliances.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective study aimed to assess the stability of Class II malocclusion treatment with the distal jet, followed by fixed appliances. METHODS: Seventy-five cephalograms of 30 subjects were divided into 2 groups. The treated group consisted of 15 patients who were evaluated at the pretreatment, posttreatment, and long-term posttreatment stages. The control group consisted of 15 subjects with normal occlusion, comparable to the experimental group at the long-term posttreatment period. Intergroup comparison of posttreatment changes was evaluated with t tests. RESULTS: In the long-term posttreatment period, there was no significant change in the anteroposterior position of the maxilla and mandible to the cranial base. The lower anterior face height had a significantly smaller increase in the treated than in the control group. The maxillary molars in the treated group had significantly smaller vertical development, and the mandibular incisors had significantly greater labial tipping and protrusion than the control group. The treatment produced significant improvement in molar relationship and reduction of overbite and overjet, which remained stable in the long-term posttreatment period. There was greater upper lip protrusion in the experimental than in the control group in the long-term posttreatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of Class II malocclusions with the distal jet, followed by fixed appliances, showed good long-term stability in molar relationship, overbite, and overjet.

Class II malocclusion treatment changes with the Jones jig, Distal jet and First Class appliances.

Objective Maxillary molar distalization with intraoral distalizer appliances is a non-extraction orthodontic treatment used to correct molar relationship in patients with Class II malocclusion presenting maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and minor skeletal discrepancies. This study compares the changes caused by three distalizers with different force systems. Methodology 71 patients, divided into three groups, were included. The Jones jig group (JJG, n=30; 16 male, 14 female, 13.17 years mean age) was treated with the Jones jig for 0.8 years. The Distal jet group (DJG, n=25; 8 male, 17 female, 12.57 years mean age) was treated with the Distal jet for 1.06 years. The First Class group (FCG, n=16; 6 male, 10 female, 12.84 years mean age) was treated with the First Class for 0.69 years. Intergroup treatment changes were compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Tukey's tests. Results Intergroup comparisons showed significantly greater maxillary incisor protrusion in DJG than in FCG (2.56±2.24 mm vs. 0.74±1.39mm, p=0.015). The maxillary first premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (14.65±6.31º, 8.43±3.99º, 0.97±3.16º; p<0.001). They also showed greater mesialization in JJG than FCG (3.76±1.46 mm vs. 2.27±1.47 mm, p=0.010), and greater extrusion in DJG compared to JJG (0.90±0.77 mm vs 0.11±0.60 mm, p=0.004). The maxillary second premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation and mesialization in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (12.77±5.78º, 3.20±3.94º, -2.12±3.71º and 3.87±1.34 mm, 2.25±1.40 mm, 1.24±1.26 mm, respectively; p<0.001). DJG showed smaller distal angulation of maxillary first molars (-2.14±5.09º vs. -7.73±4.28º and -6.05±3.76º, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p<0.001) and greater maxillary second molars extrusion (1.17±1.41 mm vs -0.02±1.16 mm and 0.16±1.40 mm, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p=0.003). Overjet change was significantly larger in DJG compared to FCG (1.79±1.67 mm vs 0.68±0.84; p=0.046). Treatment time was smaller in FCG (0.69±0.22 years vs 0.81±0.33 years and 1.06±0.42 years, comparing it with the JJG and DJG, respectively; p=0.005). Conclusion The three appliances corrected the Class II molar relationship by dentoalveolar changes. The Distal jet produced smaller molar distal angulation than the Jones jig and First Class. The First Class appliance showed less anchorage loss, greater percentage of distalization and shorter treatment time than the Jones jig and Distal jet.

Class II malocclusion treatment changes with the Jones jig, Distal jet and First Class appliances

Abstract Objective Maxillary molar distalization with intraoral distalizer appliances is a non-extraction orthodontic treatment used to correct molar relationship in patients with Class II malocclusion presenting maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and minor skeletal discrepancies. This study compares the changes caused by three distalizers with different force systems. Methodology 71 patients, divided into three groups, were included. The Jones jig group (JJG, n=30; 16 male, 14 female, 13.17 years mean age) was treated with the Jones jig for 0.8 years. The Distal jet group (DJG, n=25; 8 male, 17 female, 12.57 years mean age) was treated with the Distal jet for 1.06 years. The First Class group (FCG, n=16; 6 male, 10 female, 12.84 years mean age) was treated with the First Class for 0.69 years. Intergroup treatment changes were compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Tukey's tests. Results Intergroup comparisons showed significantly greater maxillary incisor protrusion in DJG than in FCG (2.56±2.24 mm vs. 0.74±1.39mm, p=0.015). The maxillary first premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (14.65±6.31º, 8.43±3.99º, 0.97±3.16º; p<0.001). They also showed greater mesialization in JJG than FCG (3.76±1.46 mm vs. 2.27±1.47 mm, p=0.010), and greater extrusion in DJG compared to JJG (0.90±0.77 mm vs 0.11±0.60 mm, p=0.004). The maxillary second premolars showed progressive and significantly smaller mesial angulation and mesialization in JJG, FCG and DJG, respectively (12.77±5.78º, 3.20±3.94º, -2.12±3.71º and 3.87±1.34 mm, 2.25±1.40 mm, 1.24±1.26 mm, respectively; p<0.001). DJG showed smaller distal angulation of maxillary first molars (-2.14±5.09º vs. -7.73±4.28º and -6.05±3.76º, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p<0.001) and greater maxillary second molars extrusion (1.17±1.41 mm vs -0.02±1.16 mm and 0.16±1.40 mm, for the JJG and FCG, respectively; p=0.003). Overjet change was significantly larger in DJG compared to FCG (1.79±1.67 mm vs 0.68±0.84; p=0.046). Treatment time was smaller in FCG (0.69±0.22 years vs 0.81±0.33 years and 1.06±0.42 years, comparing it with the JJG and DJG, respectively; p=0.005). Conclusion The three appliances corrected the Class II molar relationship by dentoalveolar changes. The Distal jet produced smaller molar distal angulation than the Jones jig and First Class. The First Class appliance showed less anchorage loss, greater percentage of distalization and shorter treatment time than the Jones jig and Distal jet.

Dental, skeletal and soft tissue effects of the Distal Jet appliance: A prospective clinical study

ABSTRACT Objective: This study evaluated the dental, skeletal and soft tissue effects in Class II malocclusion patients treated with Distal Jet appliance, compared to an untreated control group. Methods: 44 patients with Class II malocclusion were divided into two groups: Group 1 (experimental) - 22 patients, mean age of 12.7 years, treated with the Distal Jet appliance for a mean period of 1.2 years; Group 2 (control) - 22 untreated patients, mean age of 12.2 years, followed by a mean period of 1.2 years. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before treatment (T0) and at the end of the distalization (T1).Independent t test was used to identify intergroup differences. Results: When compared to control group, the Distal Jet produced a significant increase in mandibular plane angle (0.7 ± 2.0o). The maxillary second molars presented distal inclination (6.6 ± 3.8o), distalization (1.1 ± 1.1 mm) and extrusion (1.3 ± 2.1 mm). The maxillary first molars distalized by 1.2 ± 1.4 mm. The maxillary first premolars mesialized by 3.4 ± 1.1 mm. The maxillary incisors showed slight labial tipping of 4.3 ± 4.7o and were protruded by 2.4 ± 1.7 mm. There were no significant changes in the facial profile. The overjet increased 1.5 ± 1.1 mm and overbite had no significant changes. Conclusion: The Distal Jet appliance is effective to distalize the maxillary first molars, but promotes increase in mandibular plane angle, distal inclination, extrusion and distalization of maxillary second molars, mesialization of maxillary first premolars, proclination and protrusion of maxillary incisors, and increase in overjet, when compared to a control group.

RESUMO Objetivo: o presente estudo avaliou os efeitos dentoesqueléticos e tegumentares em pacientes com má oclusão de Classe II tratados com aparelho Distal Jet, comparando-os com um grupo controle não tratado. Métodos: 44 pacientes com má oclusão de Classe II foram divididos em dois grupos: Grupo 1 (experimental) - 22 pacientes, idade média de 12,7 anos, tratados com o aparelho Distal Jet por um período médio de 1,2 anos; Grupo 2 (controle) - 22 pacientes não tratados, idade média de 12,2 anos, acompanhados por um período médio de 1,2 anos. Telerradiografias laterais foram obtidas antes do tratamento (T0) e no final da distalização (T1). O teste t independente foi usado para identificar as diferenças entre os grupos. Resultados: quando comparado ao grupo controle, o Distal Jet produziu um aumento significativo no ângulo do plano mandibular (0,7 ± 2,0o). Os segundos molares superiores apresentaram inclinação distal (6,6 ± 3,8o), distalização (1,1 ± 1,1 mm) e extrusão (1,3 ± 2,1 mm). Os primeiros molares superiores foram distalizados por 1,2 ± 1,4 mm. Os primeiros pré-molares superiores, mesializados por 3,4 ± 1,1 mm. Os incisivos superiores mostraram leve inclinação labial de 4,3 ± 4,7o e foram protruídos por 2,4 ± 1,7 mm. Não existiram alterações significativas no perfil facial. O overjet aumentou 1,5 ± 1,1 mm, e o overbite não sofreu alterações significativas. Conclusão: o aparelho Distal Jet é eficaz para distalizar os primeiros molares superiores, mas promove aumento no ângulo do plano mandibular, inclinação distal, extrusão e distalização dos segundos molares superiores, mesialização dos primeiros pré-molares superiores, vestibularização e protrusão dos incisivos superiores e aumento do overjet, quando comparado a um grupo de controle.

Dental, skeletal and soft tissue effects of the Distal Jet appliance: A prospective clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the dental, skeletal and soft tissue effects in Class II malocclusion patients treated with Distal Jet appliance, compared to an untreated control group. METHODS: 44 patients with Class II malocclusion were divided into two groups: Group 1 (experimental) - 22 patients, mean age of 12.7 years, treated with the Distal Jet appliance for a mean period of 1.2 years; Group 2 (control) - 22 untreated patients, mean age of 12.2 years, followed by a mean period of 1.2 years. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before treatment (T0) and at the end of the distalization (T1).Independent t test was used to identify intergroup differences. RESULTS: When compared to control group, the Distal Jet produced a significant increase in mandibular plane angle (0.7 ± 2.0o). The maxillary second molars presented distal inclination (6.6 ± 3.8o), distalization (1.1 ± 1.1 mm) and extrusion (1.3 ± 2.1 mm). The maxillary first molars distalized by 1.2 ± 1.4 mm. The maxillary first premolars mesialized by 3.4 ± 1.1 mm. The maxillary incisors showed slight labial tipping of 4.3 ± 4.7o and were protruded by 2.4 ± 1.7 mm. There were no significant changes in the facial profile. The overjet increased 1.5 ± 1.1 mm and overbite had no significant changes. CONCLUSION: The Distal Jet appliance is effective to distalize the maxillary first molars, but promotes increase in mandibular plane angle, distal inclination, extrusion and distalization of maxillary second molars, mesialization of maxillary first premolars, proclination and protrusion of maxillary incisors, and increase in overjet, when compared to a control group.

Class II malocclusion treatment effects with Jones Jig and Distal Jet followed by fixed appliances.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes in Class II malocclusion patients treated with Jones Jig and Distal Jet distalizers followed by fixed appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experimental groups comprised 45 Class II malocclusion subjects divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jones Jig, and group 2 consisted of 20 patients treated with the Distal Jet. Group 3 comprised 19 untreated Class II subjects. Cephalograms were analyzed before and after orthodontic treatment. For intergroup comparisons, one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey tests were performed. RESULTS: During treatment, the experimental groups exhibited significant increases in occlusal plane inclination and maxillary second molar mesial tipping. Additionally, the molar relationship improved and overjet decreased significantly in the experimental groups. The Jones Jig group showed greater mandibular incisor proclination and greater overbite reduction than the control group. No significant intergroup differences in nasolabial angle changes were found. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment protocols using the Jones Jig and Distal Jet followed by fixed appliances were effective in correcting Class II malocclusion by means of dentoalveolar changes without significant skeletal and soft tissue changes. The experimental groups showed occlusal plane clockwise rotation and greater mesial tipping of maxillary second molars when compared to the untreated group.

Tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II com distalizador First Class em ancoragem convencional e esquelética: relato de caso / Treatment of Class II malocclusion with First Class distalizer in conventional and skeletal anchorage: case repor

Os distalizadores intrabucais, como o First Class, podem ser utilizados para o tratamento de pacientes com má oclusão de Classe II dentária. Entretanto, eles frequentemente apresentam efeitos colaterais indesejáveis, como a perda de ancoragem devido o uso do palato e dos pré-molares como ancoragem para a distalização. A solução para esse obstáculo tem sido obtida utilizando mini-implantes. O objetivo deste artigo foi apresentar o tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II dentária com o distalizador First Class associado à ancoragem convencional e esquelética e descrever os efeitos em cada tipo de ancoragem. Dois casos clínicos foram ilustrados. As alterações dentoesqueléticas foram avaliadas por meio de telerradiografias. O caso tratado com a ancoragem esquelética mostrou menor angulação dos primeiros molares do que a convencional, indicando maior movimento de corpo. O aparelho First Class promoveu eficiente distalização do molar, entretanto, houve perda de ancoragem mesmo quando utilizada ancoragem esquelética, embora tenha apresentado menores efeitos colaterais do que a ancoragem convencional. São necessários estudos para maior compreensão dos efeitos da biomecânica com mini-implantes associados aos distalizadores intrabucais.

Intrabucal distalizer, such as the “First Class”, can be used to orthodontic treatment of patients with dentoalveolar Class II malocclusion. However they often present undesirable side effects such as anchorage loss, due to the use of palate and premolars as anchorage for distalization. The solution to this obstacle has been provided by skeletal anchorage with mini-implants. The aim of this article was to present the treatment of dentoalveolar Class II malocclusion with First Class distalizer associated with conventional and skeletal anchorage and describe the clinical effects of each type of anchorage. Two case reports were illustrated. The dentoskeletal alterations were assessed by means of lateral cephalometric radiographs. Skeletal anchorage showed lower tipping than conventional anchorage indicating predominantly bodily movement. First Class appliance offered reliable molar distalization, however there was anchorage loss even when skeletal anchorage was used, although skeletal anchorage showed less side effects than conventional anchorage. Further works are required to elucidate the effects of biomechanics with mini-implants associated with the intraoral distalizers.

Alterações cefalométricas produzidas pelos aparelhos Distal Jet e Pendulum no tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II / Cephalometric changes produced by the distal jet and pendulum appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion

A proposta deste estudo consistiu em comparar, por meio de telerradiografias em norma lateral, as alterações dentoesqueléticas e tegumentares promovidas pelos distalizadores intrabucais Distal Jet e Pendulum, seguidos do aparelho fixo corretivo, e compará-los a um grupo controle. O grupo 1 constituí-se de 20 pacientes, 15 do gênero feminino e 5 do masculino apresentando idade média inicial de 12,77 ± 1,22 anos (10,54 a 14,50) e idade média final de 16,92 ± 1,37 anos (14,90 a 19,09). Estes pacientes foram tratados com o distalizador intrabucal Distal Jet seguido do aparelho ortodôntico fixo corretivo por um período médio de 4,15 ± 0,66 anos (2,35 a 5,07). O grupo 2 composto por 15 pacientes, 10 do gênero feminino e 5 do gênero masculino, com idade média inicial de 13,42 ± 1,32 anos (11,18 a 14,86) e idade média final de 17,77 ± 1,62 anos (15,12 a 21,50), recebeu o tratamento com o aparelho Pendulum seguido do aparelho ortodôntico fixo por um período médio de 4,41 ± 0,84 anos (3,12 a 6,71). O grupo 3 compreendeu 16 pacientes, 8 do gênero feminino e 8 do masculino, com má oclusão de Classe II, não submetidos a qualquer tipo de tratamento ortodôntico. Este grupo apresentou a idade média inicial de 12,25 ± 1,38 anos (10,10 a 14,95) e a idade média final de 15,98 ± 1,84 anos (13,18 a 19,48). O tempo médio de observação foi de 3,73 anos ± 1,27 anos (2,02 a 6,09). Os pacientes foram compatibilizados de acordo com a idade, tempo de tratamento/observação, gênero, severidade da má oclusão de Classe II e variáveis cefalométricas iniciais. Utilizou-se a análise de variância a um critério (ANOVA) seguida do teste de Tukey para comparar as idades iniciais e finais, tempo de tratamento/observação, valores cefalométricos iniciais e finais e as alterações decorrentes do tratamento/tempo de observação. A distribuição dos gêneros e a severidade da má oclusão foram analisadas pelo teste do qui-quadrado. Os resultados da comparação das alterações promovidas...

This study compared, by analysis of lateral cephalograms, the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes promoted by the intraoral distalizers Distal Jet and Pendulum, followed by corrective fixed appliances, compared to a control group. Group 1 was composed of 20 patients, being 15 females and 5 males, with initial mean age 12.77 ± 1.22 years (10.54 to 14.50) and the final mean age was 16.92 ± 1.37 years (14.90 to 19.09). These patients were treated with the intraoral distalizer Distal Jet followed by corrective fixed appliances for a mean period of 4.15 ± 0.66 years (2.35 to 5.07). Group 2 was composed of 15 patients, being 10 females and 5 males, with initial mean age 13.42 ± 1.32 years (11.18 to 14.86) and final mean age 17.77 ± 1.62 years (15.12 to 21.50), and was treated with the Pendulum appliance followed by fixed orthodontic appliances for a mean period of 4.41 ± 0.84 years (3.12 to 6.71). Group 3 comprised 16 patients, being 8 females and 8 males, with Class II malocclusion, not submitted to any orthodontic treatment. This group presented initial mean age 12.25 ± 1.38 years (10.10 to 14.95) and final mean age 15.98 ± 1.84 years (13.18 to 19.48). The mean follow-up period was 3.73 years ± 1.27 years (2.02 to 6.09). The patients were matched for age, period of treatment/follow-up, gender, severity of the Class II malocclusion and initial cephalometric variables. The initial and final ages, period of treatment/follow-up, initial and final cephalometric values and changes caused by treatment/follow-up time were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey test. The distribution of genders and severity of malocclusion were analyzed by the chi-square test. The results of comparison of changes promoted by treatment/follow-up period between the three groups demonstrated that the distalizers Distal Jet and Pendulum did not interfere with the maxillary and mandibular components or the maxillomandibular relationship...