Comparison of two different types of molar distalization appliance

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the clinical efficacy of Modified Veltri (MV) and first class (FC) appliances, to investigate the effect on skeletal teeth and soft tissues in the patients and to compare the findings obtained. Methods: The study included 40 individuals aged between 12 and 16 years with class II malocclusion (ANB <6o), dental crowding not requiring extraction, and no congenital tooth deficiency. MV and FC appliances were applied to 20 and 20 individuals, respectively. At the beginning of the study, at the end of distalization and three months after the reinforcement appliance was applied, cephalometric X-rays and plaster models were taken from the individuals and analyzed. The statistical significance of the changes that occurred during the distalization and reinforcement periods were evaluated by independent student’s t test for each group, and the significance between the groups was checked by paired Student’s t test. Results: In the MV and FC groups, molar distalization was achieved in a similar time (4.29±0.97, 4.20±0.86). Skeletal changes were observed only in the MV group in SNB, ANB, SNGoGn, FMA (p<0.05) and B-PTV (p<0.01) values. In the first molar tooth, the MV group showed -2.16 mm distalization, 1.88 mm intrusion and 5.21o distal tipping, while the FC group showed -2.42 mm distalization and 1.19o distal tipping. During the consolidation period, 1.13 mm recurrence of distalization was observed in the MV group. In the MV group, overjet increased by 2.28 mm and overbite decreased by 1.89 mm. In the FC group, the overjet increased by 1.32 mm and the overbite decreased by 0.94 mm. After soft tissue distalization, Lu-E and Li-E values decreased by 1.45 mm and 1.01 mm in the MV group and by 1.38 mm and 1.30 mm in the FC group. Conclusion: In this study, although MV and FC appliances provided a similar amount of distalization in a similar amount of time, recurrence was observed in the MV group during the reinforcement period. In addition, loss of anchorage was observed more in the MV group. Anchorage loss should be considered in the clinical application of MV and FC appliances.

Keywords

• Distalization
• veltri
• first class

References

1. Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston LE. The effects of premolar extraction: a long term comparison of outcomes in clear-cut extraction and nonextraction class II patients. Angle Orthod. 1993;63:257-272.
2. Dewel BF. Serial extraction: Precautions, Limitations and Alternatives. Am J Orthod. 1976;69:95-97.
3. Hazar S, Akyalçin S, Boyacioğlu H. Soft tissue profile changes in Anatolian Turkish girls and boys following orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. Turkish J Med Sci. 2004;34(3):171-178.
4. Gianelly AA, White WL. Anthony Gianelly on current issues in orthodontics. J Clin Orthod. 1996;30:239-446.
5. Philip C. Tandem concept in the nonextraction treatment of class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod. 1975;63:119-164.
6. Blechman AM. Magnetic force systems in orthodontics. Clinical results of a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1985;87: 201-210.
7. Gianelly AA, Bednar J, Dietz V. Japanese Ni-Ti coils used to move molars distally. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1991;99:564-566.
8. Locatelli R, Bednar J, Dietz VS, Gianelly A. Molar distalization with superelastic NiTi wire. J Clin Orthod. 1992;26:277-279.

9. Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for class II non-compliance therapy. J Clin Orthod. 1992;26:706-717.
10. Jones RD, White JM. Rapid class II molar correction with an open coil jig. J Clin Orthod. 1992;26:661-664.
11. Carano A. The distal jet for upper molar distalization. J Clin Orthod. 1996;26:374-380.
12. Keleş A. Maxillary unilateral molar distalization with sliding mechanics: a preliminary investigation. Eur J Orthod. 2001; 23:507-515.
13. Fortini A, Lupoli M, Parri M. The first class appliance for rapid molar distalization. J Clin Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;33:322-328.
14. Veltri N. Espansione mascellare a 360 gradi. Sistematica dell’utilizzo di apparecchi fissi con vite per la correzione delle anomalie del mascellare superiore. Boll di Inf Ortod Leone. 1999; (63):25-28.
15. Giancotti A Cozza P. Nickel titanium double-loop system for simultaneous distalization of first and second molars. J Clin Orthod. 1998;255-260.
16. Gulati S, Kharbanda DP Parkash H. Dental and skeletal changes after intraoral molar distalization with sectional jig assembly. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998;(114):319-327.
17. Fortini A, Lupoli M, Giuntoli F, Franchi L. Dentoskeletal effects induced by rapid molar distalization with the first class appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;125:697-705.
18. Kucukkeles N, Cakirer B, Mowafi M. Cephalometric evaluation of molar distalization by hyrax screw used in conjunction with a lip bumper. World J Orthod. 7(3):261-268.
19. Bacetti T, Franchi L. A new appliance for molar distalization. Repr from Ortho News. 2001;1:2-6.
20. Keles A, Sayınsu K. A new approach in maxillary molar distalization: intraoral bodily molar distalizer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;117(1):39-48.
21. Pancherz H. The mechanism of class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:104-113.
22. Chiu PP, McNamara JA, Franchi L. A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: Distal jet versus pendulum. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;128(3):353-365.
23. Ricketts RM. The influence of orthodontic treatment on facial growth and development. Angle Orthod. 1960;30:103-133.
24. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953; 39:729-755.
25. Champagne M. Reliability of measurements from photocopies of study models. J Clin Orthod. 1992;26:648-650.
26. Bondemark L. A comparative analysis of distal maxillary molar movement produced by a new lingual intra-arch Ni-Ti coil appliance and a magnetic appliance. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:683-695.
27. Doğan K, Başaran G, Hamamcı N, Hamamcı O. Noncompliance therapy: Veltri appliance. World J Orthod. 2009;10:1-6.
28. Haydar S, Uner O. Comparison of Jones jig molar distalization appliance with extraoral traction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(1):49-53.
29. Papadopoulos MA, Melkos AB, Athanasiou AE. Noncompliance maxillary molar distalization with the First Class Appliance: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop [Internet]. 2010;137:586.e1-586.e13.
30. Bussick TJ, McNamara J. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;117:333-343.
31. Ghosh J, Nanda R. Evaluation of an intraoral maxillary molar distalization technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1996;110: 639-646.
32. Ngantung V, Nanda RS, Bowman S. Posttreatment evaluation of the distal jet appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2001;120: 178-185.
33. Itoh T, Tokuda T, Kiyosue S, Hirose T, Matsumoto M. Molar distalization with repelling magnets. J Clin Orthod. 1991;25:611-617.
34. Vilanovaa L, Castillob A, Bellini-Pereiraa S, at al. Three-dimensional changes after maxillary molar distalization with a miniscrew-anchored cantilever. Angle Orthod. 2023;93(5):513-523.
35. Cerattia C, Serafinb M, Del Fabbroc M, Caprioglio A. Effectiveness of miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization according to temporary anchorage device features and appliance design: systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod. 2024;94(1): 107-121.
36. Maddalone M, Losi F, Rota E, Baldoni MG. Relationship between the position of the ıncisors and the thickness of the soft tissues in the upper jaw: cephalometric evaluation. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12(5):391.