Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction: The aims of this meta-analysis were to quantify and to compare the amounts of distalization and
anchorage loss of conventional and skeletal anchorage methods in the correction of Class II malocclusion with
intraoral distalizers. Methods: The literature was searched through 5 electronic databases, and inclusion criteria
were applied. Articles that presented pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric values were preferred.
Quality assessments of the studies were performed. The averages and standard deviations of molar and premo-
lar effects were extracted from the studies to perform a meta-analysis. Results: After applying the inclusion and
exclusion criteria, 40 studies were included in the systematic review. After the quality analysis, 2 articles were
classified as high quality, 27 as medium quality, and 11 as low quality. For the meta-analysis, 6 studies were
included, and they showed average molar distalization amounts of 3.34 mm with conventional anchorage and
5.10 mm with skeletal anchorage. The meta-analysis of premolar movement showed estimates of combined
effects of 2.30 mm (mesialization) in studies with conventional anchorage and 4.01 mm (distalization) in
studies with skeletal anchorage. Conclusions: There was scientific evidence that both anchorage systems
are effective for distalization; however, with skeletal anchorage, there was no anchorage loss when direct an-
chorage was used. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:602-15)
F
or Class II malocclusion, several forms of or by distalizing the maxillary molars to create a Class I
correction produce different dental and skeletal relationship.9
effects depending on the type of treatment.1 For several years, the extraoral appliance was the most
When the problems of this malocclusion are predomi- widely used distalizing device, but it is no longer estheti-
nantly skeletal, it is likely to be corrected by functional cally acceptable. Also, it is removable and depends on pa-
or mechanical orthopedic appliances. However, to tient compliance, which can compromise the results.2-4
achieve satisfactory results, these protocols usually Therefore, as alternatives to compliance-dependent
require patient compliance in using the appliances.2-4 headgear, many intraoral methods to distalize the maxil-
Lack of compliance can increase treatment time and lary molars have been proposed, such as repelling mag-
create an uneasy relationship between parents, patient, nets,10 distal jet appliance,11 Jones jig appliance,12
and doctor, thus compromising the final treatment nickel-titanium coil springs,13 pendulum and pendex ap-
result.3 When the problems of Class II malocclusions pliances,14,15 Wilson bimetric distalizing arch system
are predominantly dental, these malocclusions can be (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, Colo),16 first class
corrected by extractions in at least 1 dental arch,5,6 appliance (Leone, Firenze, Italy),17 and others, giving
without extractions by using intermaxillary elastics,7,8 clinicians a wide variety of treatment options.
Intraoral appliances have proven to be effective for
From Bauru Dental School, University of S~ao Paulo, Bauru, S~ao Paulo, Brazil. maxillary molar distalization independently of patient
a
b
Postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics. compliance.3 However, distalizers generally use the
Professor, Department of Orthodontics.
c
Postgraduate student, Department of Public Health. Nance button as anchorage, but it is not enough
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the to neutralize the side effects of anchorage loss,18
producets or companies described in this article. represented by maxillary anterior crowding, maxillary
Reprint requests to: Roberto Henrique da Costa Grec, Department of Orthodon-
tics, Bauru Dental School, University of S~ao Paulo, Alameda Octavio Pinheiro incisor labial inclination increasing the overjet, and
Brisolla 9-75, Bauru, SP 17012-901, Brazil; e-mail, robertogrec@usp.br. tipping of premolars and canines.19-25
Submitted, June 2012; revised and accepted, November 2012. To prevent anchorage loss, mini-implants can be
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2013 by the American Association of Orthodontists. used as an efficient skeletal anchorage unit for molar
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.11.024 distalization, decreasing the side effects with more
602
Grec et al 603
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5
604 Grec et al
May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Grec et al 605
pretreatment age of 13.17 years, was treated with the did not mention the mean age,36 and 2 articles did not
Jones jig appliance for 0.91 years, and group 2 com- mention the sex of the sample.24,42
prised 20 patients (8 boys, 12 girls) with a mean pretreat- Error analysis: the authors of 24 studies performed
ment age of 13.98 years, treated with the pendulum and described the method error results. Some studies
appliance for 1.18 years. The maxillary second premolars stated that the error of the method was performed but
showed greater mesial tipping and extrusion in the Jones did not present the results.3,20-22,24,36,38,43-45
jig group, indicating more anchorage loss during molar Statistical analyses: the authors of 4 studies
distalization with this appliance. The amounts and the performed only a descriptive analysis.3,18,24,46
monthly rates of molar distalization were similar in
both groups. Maxillary molar distalization appliances with
According to each criterion for quality analysis, the conventional anchorage
following results were obtained. Treatment effects of distalizers with conventional
Study design: only 2 studies were randomized clinical anchorage were analyzed in 43 groups assessed in 36
trials with the randomization process described in detail.9,38 studies (Table IV).
Sample size: the authors of 30 studies performed Fourteen distalizers were used: first class, pendu-
sample-size calculation or had sample sizes larger than lum, distal jet, Jones jig, dual force, Keles slider,
or equal to 15 patients. greenfield, jig appliance modified, pendex, 3-
Selection description: 7 studies mentioned the dimensional bimetric maxillary distalizing arch
severity of the malocclusions.9,19,23,25,39-41 One article (3D-BMDA), intraoral bodily molar distalizer (IBMD),
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5
606 Grec et al
nickel-titanium coil, magnets, and sectional jig and the Jones jig (6 articles). The most used anchorage
assembly. The pendulum appliance was the most reinforcement appliance was the Nance button and its
used (22 articles), followed by the distal jet (7 articles) variations (Table IV).
May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Grec et al 607
The included studies evaluated patients during the ranged from 9.29 to 1547 years. Treatment times were
growth period, and the mean initial chronologic age 1.50 to 14.16 months.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5
608 Grec et al
Molars demonstrated distal movements from 1.17 to excluded. The meta-analysis was conducted with 4
6.10 mm with conventional anchorage. The pendulum studies of medium quality, with heterogeneity of I2 of
appliance showed the greatest distalization in 7 82% in the analysis of molar distalization, and of I2 of
months.22 The least distalization was obtained with 69% in the analysis of premolars.
the Jones jig in 6 months.38 The greatest molar distal One study with more than 1 group was subdivided
tipping was 18.5 ,23 and the least was 0.89 .43 according to the number of groups and separately
Anchorage loss could be identified in the studies with included in the meta-analysis.25 Therefore, 3 items
conventional anchorage through premolar movement, were analyzed with conventional anchorage and 4 items
which showed positive values indicating mesial with skeletal anchorage.
movement. These values ranged from 0.27 mm in 3 The meta-analysis of molar distal movement had
months47 to 6.6 mm in 5 months48 with the pendulum estimated combined effects of 3.34 mm in studies with
appliance. The greatest premolar mesial tipping was conventional anchorage and 5.10 mm in studies with
9.47 observed in the study of Runge et al.45 skeletal anchorage (Figs 2 and 3).
As for the premolars, the meta-analysis showed average
Maxillary molar distalization appliances with mesial movements of 2.30 mm in studies with conven-
skeletal anchorage tional anchorage and 4.01 mm of distal movement in
In 6 studies, the treatment effects of distalizers with studies with skeletal anchorage (Figs 4 and 5).
skeletal anchorage were analyzed. Four studies used the
pendulum appliance to distalize the maxillary DISCUSSION
molars,36,37,49,50 one used the distal jet,44 and the other Since the introduction of intraoral distalizers for
used the dual force.51 One36,37,50 or 237,44,49,51 implants Class II malocclusion treatment, studies have been
or mini-implants were used in the paramedian region of conducted to evaluate their distalizing effects and
the midpalatal suture as anchorage. The screw was anchorage losses with their use.
connected to an acrylic plate37,49-51 except in the One systematic review evaluated the effects of intrao-
€ g et al36 (Table IV).
studies of Kinzinger et al44 and Onça ral distalizers with conventional anchorage28 and the
The mean initial chronologic age ranged from 12.144 other with skeletal anchorage.29 The purpose of this
to 14.351 years. One study did not report the mean initial meta-analysis was to compare the anchorage loss with
age.36 Treatment time ranged from 5.051 to 7.849 the use of these appliances with both types of anchorage.
months. There is no standardization regarding evaluation of
The mean molar distal movement ranged from 3.944 to anchorage loss, which can be conducted by using the
50
6.4 mm, and the mean molar distal tipping ranged from premolars, incisors, and overjets as references. Because
3.0 44 to 12.2 .39 The greatest distalization was obtained anchorage loss can be underestimated by crowding of
with the pendulum and the smallest with the distal jet. the anterior teeth, the option was to determine loss of
Studies with mini-implant anchorage showed anchorage by means of changes in premolar position.
negative values for premolar movement ( 3.1 to 5.4 Thus, studies that used the incisors and overjet as
mm) indicating distal movement of these teeth and no references were excluded to decrease the variability
anchorage loss. Only the study of Kinzinger et al44 among the studies.
showed mesial movement (0.72 mm) and mesial tipping In a systematic review, it is important to evaluate the
(0.79 ) of premolars, indicating anchorage loss even quality of the articles and allow inclusion of better-
when associated with mini-implants. quality articles in the meta-analysis to decrease the
No article with skeletal anchorage was classified as heterogeneity among them, with the goal of presenting
high quality, 4 were classified as medium quality, and more reliable data.52 In health field investigations, which
2 had low quality (Table V). involve patient treatments, significant degrees of
clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity
Meta-analysis
are expected because of the nature of these studies
After we assessed the quality of the 36 studies with and the different variables involved, and the entire sys-
conventional anchorage included in the systematic tematic review project must address this issue.34
review, 34 were rejected because of low or medium Various factors should be considered to explain
quality. Thus, the meta-analysis was conducted with 2 this heterogeneity. One is the degree of occlusal
high-quality studies with no heterogeneity (I2 5 0%). severity of the Class II malocclusions; this has a direct in-
However, in the group with skeletal anchorage, no study fluence on the amounts of distalization and
had high quality, and 2 articles with low quality were anchorage loss after treatment. In other words, a complete
May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Grec et al 609
*Both studies compared the effects of the Pendulum on both anchorage types (conventional and skeletal).
Class II molar relationship requires greater molar distaliza- Ngantung et al39 included only Class II up to 3 to 4 mm of
tion and produces greater side effects on the anchorage molar relationship discrepancy. The other articles in-
unit than does a quarter Class II molar relationship.8,53,54 cluded patients with various severities.9,19,23,25,41 It
Among the 40 studies included in the systematic would be ideal if all investigators had selected patients
review, only 7 presented data regarding the initial occlu- with a similar occlusal malocclusion severity, since it
sal severity of the Class II malocclusions.9,19,23,25,39-41 would have allowed better comparisons among the
Uç€em et al41 included only patients with a complete Class studies. However, obtaining sufficient numbers of
II molar relationship; Papadopoulos et al40 included only patients with the same characteristics in a clinical study
patients with over a half Class II molar relationship; and is difficult.55
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5
610 Grec et al
Another factor related to heterogeneity is the use of used instead of a risk of bias assessment, which is
different cephalometric reference points.28 Some studies more rigid and specific for randomized clinical trials.
have used the buccal cusps of the maxillary teeth, which The number of patients in the sample is important to
are difficult to locate because of image superimposition; be able to represent part of a population; therefore, it
these teeth move excessively with accentuated was 1 criterion for quality analysis.60
angulation and do not reflect actual molar and premolar Another important criterion is a statistical analysis of
movements.56 Other studies were based on the center of the data because it provides a mathematic interpretation
the clinical crown and the centroid point, which better of the data.61 In this systematic review, the quality of 4
represent changes during treatment.20,39,45,57,58 articles was compromised because the authors gave only
Part of this heterogeneity is also related to the descriptive analyses.3,18,24,46
different study designs (randomized clinical trials, case In all the evaluated studies, the patients were in
control studies, and retrospective studies), lack of error the growth stage, in which natural skeletal and dentoal-
analyses, and different sample calculations with veolar changes must be differentiated from the
consequent great variability in the numbers of patients appliance-induced effects.62 The mean initial chrono-
in the studies. In orthodontics, it is difficult to conduct logic ages ranged from 9.29 to 1547 years. However,
a randomized clinical trial on certain topics.31,59 craniofacial growth does not significantly interfere
Because there were only 2 randomized clinical trials, when 2 distalization modalities are compared because
we thought that other study designs that disclosed distalization time is short.
important results on the effects of distalizers with The different types of distalizers used was also
different anchorage systems should be included in this a methodologic variable that must be considered. These
systematic review. Therefore, quality assessment was appliances have an active unit that applies a distalizing
May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Grec et al 611
force with various mechanisms. Because the intention This might be explained because this distalizer has
was to compare the changes in the 2 types of anchorage, a low cost and is easy to fabricate, whereas with other
these differences would not play a significant role, since distalizers (distal jet, Jones jig, first class), one needs to
the anchorage units were similar (a Nance button buy a kit that requires more complex laboratory
supported on the premolars), except for Kinzinger fabrication.15 As anchorage, all used a Nance button,
et al,63 who used the deciduous molars for conventional €
except for Uçem et al,41 who used intermaxillary elastics
anchorage. In the skeletal type, the anchorage unit was as recommended for the 3D-BMDA appliance.64,65
a mini-implant37,44,49-51 or an implant.36 The great variation in distalization time (1.50-14.16
These methodologic limitations were the reason for months) in the studies might be the result of variations
considering 11 studies to be low quality, 29 medium in the amount of force applied by each type of appliance
quality, and only 2 high quality. Of these 2 studies, and the different Class II malocclusion occlusal severities
only one obtained the maximum score possible.9 Of of the samples, which demanded different amounts of
the 11 low-quality studies, 7 were published over 10 distalization ( 1.17 to 6.10 mm).
years ago. The 2 studies considered to be high quality In the same way as in conventional anchorage, the
were from 2009 and 2010, indicating greater concern pendulum appliance was the most used in the studies
with quality because of increasingly demanding that used skeletal anchorage. Associated with skeletal
scientific methodologic criteria. anchorage, most also opted for the Nance button. Use
In this review, we observed that the most frequently of the Nance button might be a way to reduce possible
used distalizer was the pendulum and its variations. movement of the mini-implants.66
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5
612 Grec et al
Studies that associated intraoral distalizers with articles in the group with skeletal anchorage, the
skeletal anchorage in the palate used devices with meta-analysis was performed with medium-quality
various diameters and lengths. However, these factors articles; this resulted in high heterogeneity.
do not interfere with the stability or the effectiveness When there is heterogeneity, alternative analyses
of the mini-implant to increase anchorage.67,68 All such as meta-analysis in subgroups and meta-
devices used had diameters greater than 1.0 mm, regression could be considered to explain the variability
because thinner mini-implants can have considerable among the groups; however, these types of analyses
failure rates.69 require many studies.52 When this is not the case, the
The majority of the studies used 1 or 2 mini-implants random-effects model is recommended.74 This can
inserted in the paramedian region; this is considered also be used when the researcher combines various
better for mini-implants in growing patients because studies with the same objective that were not conducted
the midpalatal suture consists of connective tissue, in the same manner.34,74 This justifies its use in this
and insertion in this suture could compromise reten- study.
tion.70-72 The clinical success of molar distalization and Class II
Differently from conventional anchorage, there were malocclusion correction was observed in both groups
fewer variations in treatment times (5.0-7.8 months), (conventional and skeletal anchorage) evaluated in this
amounts of distalization ( 3.9 to 6.4 mm), and study. However, the meta-analysis showed a greater
anchorage loss ( 3.1 to 5.4 mm). Although the studies mean distalization in the skeletal anchorage group,
with skeletal anchorage did not mention the anteropos- similar to the results of Polat-Ozsoy et al.37 The
terior occlusal severity of the malocclusion, it is believed difference between the groups was 1.76 mm. The greater
that there is a tendency to select patients with greater distalization in the group with skeletal anchorage might
severity for treatment with this type of anchorage. have been due to the tendency to include patients with
Mini-implants can be used as direct or indirect more severe Class II malocclusions, when greater
anchorage. In direct skeletal anchorage, mini-implants anchorage is desired.
directly receive the force of reaction resulting from The use of intraoral distalizing appliances with
movement, whereas in indirect anchorage, the force is conventional anchorage has shown anchorage loss,
received on the anchor teeth that are supported by the which was confirmed in this meta-analysis.70,71,75 This
mini-implants.73 Of the 6 studies included in the system- is because the Nance button and the anterior teeth
atic review, 5 that used direct anchorage showed cannot resist the opposing forces of distalization
spontaneous distal movement of the premolars, without moving in the opposite direction.36,44
probably due to stretching of the interseptal Consequently, associating intraoral distalizers with
fibers.36,37,49-51 In the study that used indirect skeletal anchorage has been an approach to achieve total
anchorage, loss of anchorage, although small, was anchorage during distalization.36,37,44,49-51,66,70 The 4
shown.44 This is because the reaction force, in conjunc- studies included in the meta-analysis used direct
tion with other factors, such as movement of the anchorage, which explains the net distal movement of
mini-implants due to absence of osseointegration or the premolars.
bone elasticity, flexibility of the premolar–mini-implant Direct skeletal anchorage produces fewer side effects
connecting wire, or insufficient contact of the wire resulting from distalization mechanics, due to sponta-
with the mini-implant and the periodontal ligament, neous distal migration of the premolars; this
might result in mesialization of premolars even when reduced anterior crowding, facilitating the fixed
associated with mini-implants.49,70 appliance treatment phase and decreased treatment
Kinzinger et al44 used the distal jet associated time.36,49,50,71
with mini-implants in the palate, including the 2 first Even though the studies with direct anchorage
premolars instead of the second premolars. After showed no anchorage loss, side effects of anterior
distalization of the molars, the second premolars movement of mini-implants can occur, caused by the
underwent spontaneous distalization of 1.87 mm; reaction force from the molars.36,49 Skeletal anchorage
however, there was no reduction in anterior crowding, does not eliminate the reaction force during
because the first premolars that had indirect anchorage orthodontic treatment but transfers it to the bone,
showed mesialization of 0.72 mm. which has plasticity when subjected to forces and thus
To enable a meta-analysis, careful selection was allows movement of mini-implants.76,77
made, and only 2 studies in the group with conventional The efficiency of intraoral distalizers in clinical
anchorage were included because they were of high applications depends on a stable anchorage unit.75
quality. However, since there were no high-quality Anchorage is a decisive factor for successful
May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Grec et al 613
orthodontic treatment with these appliance types and 14. Hilgers JJ. A palatal expansion appliance for non-compliance
must be an initial concern of orthodontists in this type therapy. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:491-7.
15. Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for Class II non-compliance
of treatment.
therapy. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:706-14.
16. Wilson RC. Comment on rapid molar distalization. Am J Orthod
CONCLUSIONS Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107(3):20A-2A.
17. Fortini A, Lupoli M, Parri M. The first class appliance for rapid
Molar distalization was shown to be effective with
molar distalization. J Clin Orthod 1999;33:322-8.
both anchorage systems. The amounts of distal molar 18. Mavropoulos A, Karamouzos A, Kiliaridis S, Papadopoulos MA.
movement were 3.34 mm with conventional anchorage Efficiency of noncompliance simultaneous first and second upper
and 5.10 mm with the skeletal anchorage system. molar distalization: a three-dimensional tooth movement analysis.
The conventional anchorage system showed anchor- Angle Orthod 2005;75:532-9.
19. Angelieri F, Almeida RR, Almeida MR, Fuziy A. Dentoalveolar and
age loss, represented by premolar mesial movement of
skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance followed
4.01 mm. The skeletal anchorage system showed no by fixed orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
anchorage loss and spontaneous distal premolar 2006;129:520-7.
movement of 2.30 mm when direct anchorage was 20. Brickman CD, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Evaluation of the Jones jig
used. Therefore, intraoral distalizers associated with appliance for distal molar movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2000;118:526-34.
direct skeletal anchorage seem to be a viable method
21. Bussick TJ, McNamara JA Jr. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes
to minimize the effects of anchorage loss in the associated with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
treatment of Class II malocclusions. Orthop 2000;117:333-43.
22. Chiu PP, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. A comparison of two intraoral
REFERENCES molar distalization appliances: distal jet versus pendulum. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:353-65.
1. Keim RG, Berkman C. Intra-arch maxillary molar distalization 23. Fuziy A, Rodrigues de Almeida R, Janson G, Angelieri F, Pinzan A.
appliances for Class II correction. J Clin Orthod 2004;38: Sagittal, vertical, and transverse changes consequent to maxillary
505-11. molar distalization with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod
2. Egolf RJ, BeGole EA, Upshaw HS. Factors associated with Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:502-10.
orthodontic patient compliance with intraoral elastic and headgear 24. Haydar S, Uner O. Comparison of Jones jig molar distalization
wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:336-48. appliance with extraoral traction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
3. Keles A, Sayinsu K. A new approach in maxillary molar distaliza- 2000;117:49-53.
tion: intraoral bodily molar distalizer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial 25. Patel MP, Janson G, Henriques JF, de Almeida RR, de Freitas MR,
Orthop 2000;117:39-48. Pinzan A, et al. Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig and
4. King GJ, Keeling SD, Hocevar RA, Wheeler TT. The timing of pendulum appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:
treatment for Class II malocclusions in children: a literature review. 336-42.
Angle Orthod 1990;60:87-97. 26. Gray JB, Steen ME, King GJ, Clark AE. Studies on the efficacy of
5. Hayasaki SM, Castanha Henriques JF, Janson G, de Freitas MR. implants as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod 1983;83:311-7.
Influence of extraction and nonextraction orthodontic treatment 27. Kyung SH, Lee JY, Shin JW, Hong C, Dietz V, Gianelly AA. Distal-
in Japanese-Brazilians with Class I and Class II Division 1 maloc- ization of the entire maxillary arch in an adult. Am J Orthod
clusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:30-6. Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(Supp):S123-32.
6. Janson G, Maria FR, Barros SE, Freitas MR, Henriques JF. 28. Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. Maxillary molar distalization with
Orthodontic treatment time in 2- and 4-premolar-extraction noncompliance intramaxillary appliances in Class II malocclusion.
protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:666-71. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1133-40.
7. Cetlin NM, Ten Hoeve A. Nonextraction treatment. J Clin Orthod 29. Fudalej P, Antoszewska J. Are orthodontic distalizers reinforced
1983;17:396-413. with the temporary skeletal anchorage devices effective? Am J
8. Janson G, Valarelli FP, Cançado RH, de Freitas MR, Pinzan A. Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:722-9.
Relationship between malocclusion severity and treatment success 30. PRISMA. Reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-
rate in Class II nonextraction therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial analyses; 2009. Available at: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Orthop 2009;135:274.e1-8; discussion 274-5. statement.htm. Accessed on November 20, 2011.
9. Papadopoulos MA, Melkos AB, Athanasiou AE. Noncompliance 31. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA Jr.
maxillary molar distalization with the first class appliance: Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class
a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
2010;137:586.e1-586.e13; discussion 586-7. Orthop 2006;129:599.e1-12.
10. Gianelly AA, Vaitas AS, Thomas WM. The use of magnets to move 32. Chen Y, Kyung HM, Zhao WT, Yu WJ. Critical factors for the
molars distally. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:161-7. success of orthodontic mini-implants: a systematic review. Am J
11. Carano A, Testa M. The distal jet for upper molar distalization. J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:284-91.
Clin Orthod 1996;30:374-80. 33. Perillo L, Cannavale R, Ferro F, Franchi L, Masucci C, Chiodini P,
12. Jones RD, White JM. Rapid Class II molar correction with an et al. Meta-analysis of skeletal mandibular changes during Fr€ankel
open-coil jig. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:661-4. appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:84-92.
13. Gianelly AA, Bednar J, Dietz VS. Japanese NiTi coils used to move 34. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control
molars distally. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:564-6. Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5
614 Grec et al
35. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. A likelihood approach to meta-analysis 55. Kazerooni EA. Population and sample. AJR Am J Roentgenol
with random effects. Stat Med 1996;15:619-29. 2001;177:993-9.
€ g G, Seckin O, Dincer B, Arikan F. Osseointegrated im-
36. Onça 56. Kinzinger GS, Fritz UB, Sander FG, Diedrich PR. Efficiency of
plants with pendulum springs for maxillary molar distalization: a pendulum appliance for molar distalization related to second
a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; and third molar eruption stage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
131:16-26. 2004;125:8-23.
37. Polat-Ozsoy O, Kircelli BH, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Pektas ZO, Uckan S. 57. Byloff FK, Darendeliler MA. Distal molar movement using the
Pendulum appliances with 2 anchorage designs: conventional pendulum appliance. Part 1: clinical and radiological evaluation.
anchorage vs bone anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Angle Orthod 1997;67:249-60.
2008;133:339.e9-17. 58. Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Evaluation of an intraoral maxillary molar
38. Paul LD, O'Brien KD, Mandall NA. Upper removable appliance or distalization technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;
Jones jig for distalizing first molars? A randomized clinical trial. 110:639-46.
Orthod Craniofac Res 2002;5:238-42. 59. Petren S, Bondemark L, S€oderfeldt B. A systematic review concern-
39. Ngantung V, Nanda RS, Bowman SJ. Posttreatment evaluation of ing early orthodontic treatment of unilateral posterior crossbite.
the distal jet appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; Angle Orthod 2003;73:588-96.
120:178-85. 60. Sheldon TA. Biostatistics and study design for evidence-based
40. Papadopoulos MA, Mavropoulos A, Karamouzos A. Cephalometric practice. AACN Clin Issues 2001;12:546-59.
changes following simultaneous first and second maxillary molar 61. Bandt CL, Stallard RE. An example of the importance of
distalization using a non-compliance intraoral appliance. J Orofac experimental design and statistical analysis in dental research. J
Orthop 2004;65:123-36. Periodontal Res 1967;2:173-9.
41. Uç€em TT, Yuksel S, Okay C, Gulsen A. Effects of a three- 62. Ricketts RM. Cephalometric synthesis. Am J Orthod 1960;46:
dimensional bimetric maxillary distalizing arch. Eur J Orthod 647-73.
2000;22:293-8. 63. Kinzinger G, Fuhrmann R, Gross U, Diedrich P. Modified pendulum
42. Gulati S, Kharbanda OP, Parkash H. Dental and skeletal changes appliance including distal screw and uprighting activation for
after intraoral molar distalization with sectional jig assembly. Am non-compliance therapy of Class II malocclusion in children and
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:319-27. adolescents. J Orofac Orthop 2000;61:175-90.
43. Keles A. Maxillary unilateral molar distalization with sliding 64. Wilson WL. Modular orthodontic systems. Part 1. J Clin Orthod
mechanics: a preliminary investigation. Eur J Orthod 2001;23: 1978;12:259-67:270-8.
507-15. 65. Wilson WL. Modular orthodontic systems. Part 2. J Clin Orthod
44. Kinzinger GS, Gulden N, Yildizhan F, Diedrich PR. Efficiency of 1978;12:358-75.
a skeletonized distal jet appliance supported by miniscrew anchor- 66. Gelgor IE, Karaman AI, Buyukyilmaz T. Comparison of 2 distaliza-
age for noncompliance maxillary molar distalization. Am J Orthod tion systems supported by intraosseous screws. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:578-86. Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:161.e1-8.
45. Runge ME, Martin JT, Bukai F. Analysis of rapid maxillary molar 67. Bernhart T, Vollgruber A, Gahleitner A, Dortbudak O, Haas R.
distal movement without patient cooperation. Am J Orthod Alternative to the median region of the palate for placement of
Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:153-7. an orthodontic implant. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:
46. Mavropoulos A, Sayinsu K, Allaf F, Kiliaridis S, Papadopoulos MA, 595-601.
Keles AO. Noncompliance unilateral maxillary molar distalization. 68. Lin JC, Liou EJ. A new bone screw for orthodontic anchorage. J
Angle Orthod 2006;76:382-7. Clin Orthod 2003;37:676-81.
47. Acar AG, Gursoy S, Dincer M. Molar distalization with a pendulum 69. Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, Mishima K, Sugahara T, Takano-
appliance K-loop combination. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:459-65. Yamamoto T. Factors associated with the stability of titanium
48. Toroglu MS, Uzel I, Çam OY, Hancio glu ZB. Cephalometric screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage.
evaluation of the effects of pendulum appliance on various vertical Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:373-8.
growth patterns and of the changes during short-term stabiliza- 70. Gelgor IE, Buyukyilmaz T, Karaman AI, Dolanmaz D, Kalayci A.
tion. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:15-27. Intraosseous screw-supported upper molar distalization. Angle
49. Escobar SA, Tellez PA, Moncada CA, Villegas CA, Latorre CM, Orthod 2004;74:838-50.
Oberti G. Distalization of maxillary molars with the 71. Keles A, Erverdi N, Sezen S. Bodily distalization of molars with
bone-supported pendulum: a clinical study. Am J Orthod absolute anchorage. Angle Orthod 2003;73:471-82.
Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:545-9. 72. Tosun T, Keles A, Erverdi N. Method for the placement of palatal
50. Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO, Kircelli C. Maxillary molar distalization with implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:95-100.
a bone-anchored pendulum appliance. Angle Orthod 2006;76:650-9. 73. Kinzinger G, Wehrbein H, Byloff FK, Yildizhan F, Diedrich P.
51. Oberti G, Villegas C, Ealo M, Palacio JC, Baccetti T. Maxillary molar Innovative anchorage alternatives for molar distalization—an over-
distalization with the dual-force distalizer supported by view. J Orofac Orthop 2005;66:397-413.
mini-implants: a clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 74. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR. A comparison of statistical methods for
2009;135:282.e1-5; discussion 282-3. meta-analysis. Stat Med 2001;20:825-40.
52. Crombie IK, Davies HTO. What is meta-analysis? Evid Based Med 75. Kinzinger GS, Eren M, Diedrich PR. Treatment effects of intraoral
2009;2:1-8. appliances with conventional anchorage designs for non-
53. Wheeler TT, McGorray SP, Dolce C, Taylor MG, King GJ. Effective- compliance maxillary molar distalization: a literature review. Eur
ness of early treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Den- J Orthod 2008;30:558-71.
tofacial Orthop 2002;121:9-17. 76. Kinzinger G, Gulden N, Yildizhan F, Hermanns-Sachweh B,
54. Andrews LF. The straight wire appliance. Syllabus of philosophy Diedrich P. Anchorage efficacy of palatally-inserted miniscrews
and techniques. 2nd ed. San Diego, Calif: Larry F. Andrews in molar distalization with a periodontally/miniscrew-anchored
Foundation of Orthodontic Education and Research; 1975. distal jet. J Orofac Orthop 2008;69:110-20.
May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Grec et al 615
77. Liou EJ, Pai BC, Lin JC. Do miniscrews remain stationary under 83. Taner TU, Yukay F, Pehlivanoglu M, et al. A comparative analysis of
orthodontic forces? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126: maxillary tooth movement produced by cervical headgear and
42-7. pend-x appliance. Angle Orthod 2003;73:686-91.
78. Haq A-U, Waheed-Ul-Hamid M, Chaudhry NA, et al. Effects of dis- 84. Bolla E, Muratore F, Carano A, et al. Evaluation of maxillary molar
tal jet appliance in class-II molar. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal distalization with the distal jet: a comparison with other contem-
2010;30:146-53. porary methods. Angle Orthod 2002;72:481-94.
79. Sch€utze SF, Gedrange T, Zellmann MR, et al. Effects of unilateral 85. Nishii Y, Katada H, Yamaguchi H. Three-dimensional evaluation of
molar distalization with a modified pendulum appliance. Am J Or- the distal jet appliance. World J Orthod 2002;3:321-7.
thod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:600-8. 86. Chaques-Asensi J, Kalra V. Effects of the pendulum appliance on
80. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Allaf F, et al. Unilateral molar distalization with the dentofacial complex. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:254-7.
a modified slider. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:361-5. 87. Bondemark L. A comparative analysis of distal maxillary molar
81. Ferguson DJ, Carano A, Bowman SJ, et al. A comparison of two movement produced by a new lingual intra-arch Ni-Ti coil ap-
maxillary molar distalizing appliances with the distal jet. World J pliance and a magnetic appliance. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:
Orthod 2005;6:382-90. 683-95.
82. Fortini A, Lupoli M, Giuntoli F, et al. Dentoskeletal effects induced 88. Byloff FK, Darendeliler MA. Distal molar movement using the pen-
by rapid molar distalization with the first class appliance. Am J Or- dulum appliance. Part 1: Clinical and radiological evaluation. An-
thod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:697-704; discussion 704-5. gle Orthod 1997;67:249-60.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics May 2013 Vol 143 Issue 5