Дата публикации статьи в журнале:
Название журнала: Международный Научный Институт Educatio, Выпуск: , Том: , Страницы в выпуске: -
Анотация: Aim. Our aim is to research the difference in the amount of distal movement and tipping of the upper molars in permanent dentition in patients during the growth period and in patients who have finished their growth period, both treated with M-pendulum as well as to find the time for its achievement.
Material and methods. We analyzed 72 patients, which were divided in two groups: Group 1 - 30 patients in growth period, Group 2 - 42 patients who have finished growth period.
Result. The treatment time for Group 1 has been 5.33 months and Group 2 - 6.42 months. The average dimension of the distal movement of upper first molars was 3.63 mm for all of the patients and for the second molars - 2.71 mm. We found significant larger amount of distal tipping of the second upper molar, almost 140 - group 1.9 0 - group 2. Distal tipping is less in cases with first and second molar – 9.380 , rather than in cases with presence of a germ of a third molar – 11.420 .
Conclusion. We found out that there is no significant difference in the dimensions of distal movement in patients in growth period compared to patients who has finished growth period.
DOI:
Данные для цитирования: Yordanova G.R. . PENDULUM APPLIANCE – PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES IN ITS APPLICATION AT DIFFERENT AGE PERIODS. Международный Научный Институт Educatio. Научные статьи по медицине. ; ():-.
PENDULUM APPLIANCE – PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES IN ITS APPLICATION AT DIFFERENT AGE PERIODS
1. Papadopoulos MA. Orthodontic treatment for
the Class II non-compliant patient: current principles
and techniques. Mosby, 2006.
2. Antonarakis G, Kiliaridis S. Molar distalization with noncompliance intramaxillary appliance in
class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:133-140.
3. Fontana M, Cozzania M, Caprioglio A. Noncompliance maxillary molar distalizing appliances: an
overview of the last decade. Prog Orthod.
2012;13:173–184.
4. Hilgers J. The Pendulum appliance for ClassII
non-compliance therapy. J Clin Orthod. 1992;26:706-
714.
5. Wong A, Rabie A, HaeggU. The use of pendulum appliance in the treatement of class II malocclusion. Br Dent J. 1999;187:367-370.
6. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Pisani F. Maxillary
molar distalization with a modifiet Pendulum appliance. J. Clin. Orthod. 1999;33:645-650.
7. Ghosh J, Nanda R. Evalution of intraoral maxillary molar distalization technique. Am J Orthod Dent
Orthop. 1996;110:639-646.
8. Chaqués-Asensi J, Kalra V. Effects of the pendulum appliance on the dentofacial complex. J Clin
Orthod. 2001;35:254–257.
9. Joseph AA, Butchart CJ. An evaluation of the
pendulum distalizing appliance. Semin Orthod.
2010;6:129–135.
10. Bussick T, McNamara J. Dentoalveolar and
skeletal changes associated with pendulum appliance.
Am J Orthod Dent Orthop. 2000;117:333-343.
11. Kinzinger G, Wehrbein H, Diedrich P. Molar
distalization with a modified pendulum appliance - In
vitro analysis of the force systems and in vivo study in
children and adolescents. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:558-
567.
12. Kinzinger G. Bipendulum and quad pendulum
for non-compliance molar distalization in adult patients. J Orofac Orthop. 2002;63:154-162.
13. Kinzinger, G. et al. Efficiency of a pendulum
appliance for molar distalization related to second and
third molar eruption stage. Am J Orthod Dent Orthop.
2004;125:8-23.
14. Flores-Mira C, McGrathb L, Heoc C, Major
PW. Efficiency of molar distalization associated with
second and third molar eruption stage A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(4):735-741.
15. Caprioglio A, Cozzani M, Fontana M. Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy with
erupted second molar: Segmented versus Quad Pendulum appliance. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:49-59
16. Yordanova G., Аssessment of dentoalveolar
changes on upper permanent molar distalization using
the M-pendulum, Еur. J. Orthod., 2012;34:5, e.296
17. Yordanova G. Pendulum Appliance – Clinics
and Results. IJSR 2014;3(12):1647-1649.
18. Regina C. et al: Comparative efficiency of
Class II malocclusion treatment with the pendulum appliance or two maxillary premolar extractions and
edgewise appliance, Eur. J. Orthod. 2009;31:333-340.
19. Mariani L, Maino G, Caprioglio A. Skeletal
versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion dentoalveolar and skeletal effects. Prog Orthod. 2014;15(1):43.
20. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara J. An Improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation
(CVM) Method for the Assessment of mandibular
growth. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(4):316-323.
21. Yordanova G. Clinical possibility in the treatment with M-Pendulum appliance. Dissertation. Sofia,
Faculty of Dental Medicine, 2013. p211
| Номер части: | Оглавление | Содержание | Журнал | Выходные данные |