The effects of the pendulum distalising appliance and cervical headgear on the dentofacial structures.

dc.authorscopusid40361483700
dc.authorscopusid6701774011
dc.contributor.authorToy E.
dc.contributor.authorEnacar A.
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T19:59:30Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T19:59:30Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractHeadgears are effective in distalising maxillary molars, but success depends on patient compliance and tolerance. Intra-oral distalising appliances are simple to construct and use and may be a better alternative for patients who are non-compliant or cannot tolerate headgear. To compare the Pendulum (PEN) appliance and cervical headgear (CHG) on distal movement of maxillary first molars in patients requiring maxillary molar distalisation. Thirty patients were randomly divided into two groups. Both groups had comparable occlusal and cephalometric characteristics before treatment. Fifteen patients (9 girls, 6 boys) with a mean age of 1 1.45 +/- 1.54 years (Range: 8.58-13.50 years) were treated with Pendulum appliances and 15 patients (10 girls, 5 boys) with a mean age of 11.72 + 1.24 years (Range: 9.58-13.33 years) were treated with a Ricketts-type CHG. A pilot study of four patients estimated that the time required to distalise the maxillary molars with the Pendulum appliance was five months. Therefore, the end of treatment records for the CHG group were taken after 4.96 +/- 0.35 months. Lateral and postero-anterior cephalometric radiographs were taken of both groups at the start (T1) and end of distalisation/treatment (T2). Changes in cephalometric measurements in the two groups were compared with Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests. Measurements indicated that U6-ANS distance, overjet and U1-APo distance increased, U6-PP angle and U6-PTV distance reduced, and the molar relationship improved more in the PEN group compared with the CHG group. Statistically, significant right molar - left molar differences were found between the two groups. Distalisation produced significant side effects, resulting in distal tipping of the first molars and an increase in overjet, whereas the CHG reduced the overjet. The Pendulum appliance was more effective than the CHG in distalising the maxillary first molars.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage16en_US
dc.identifier.issn0587-3908
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid21696108en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-79960143196en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.startpage10en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/90679
dc.identifier.volume27en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAustralian orthodontic journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectadolescenten_US
dc.subjectarticleen_US
dc.subjectcephalometryen_US
dc.subjectchilden_US
dc.subjectclinical trialen_US
dc.subjectcomparative studyen_US
dc.subjectcontrolled clinical trialen_US
dc.subjectcontrolled studyen_US
dc.subjectfemaleen_US
dc.subjecthumanen_US
dc.subjectinstrumentationen_US
dc.subjectmaleen_US
dc.subjectmalocclusionen_US
dc.subjectmaxillaen_US
dc.subjectmolar toothen_US
dc.subjectnonparametric testen_US
dc.subjectorthodontic deviceen_US
dc.subjectperiodontal diseaseen_US
dc.subjectrandomized controlled trialen_US
dc.subjectstatisticsen_US
dc.subjecttreatment outcomeen_US
dc.subjectAdolescenten_US
dc.subjectCephalometryen_US
dc.subjectChilden_US
dc.subjectExtraoral Traction Appliancesen_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.subjectMalocclusion, Angle Class IIen_US
dc.subjectMaxillaen_US
dc.subjectMolaren_US
dc.subjectOrthodontic Appliancesen_US
dc.subjectStatistics, Nonparametricen_US
dc.subjectTooth Movementen_US
dc.subjectTreatment Outcomeen_US
dc.titleThe effects of the pendulum distalising appliance and cervical headgear on the dentofacial structures.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar