Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Dentistry
Volume 2014, Article ID 937059, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/937059
Research Article

Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance

1Scientific Committee UOC Odontoiatria “G. Gaslini-Galliera” Hospital, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università di Cagliari, Via Binaghi 4, 09121 Cagliari, Italy
2Università di Pisa, Lungarno Pacinotti 43, 56126 Pisa, Italy
3Department of Orthodontics, Università di Ferrarara, Via Montebello 31, 44121 Ferrara, Italy
4Department of Orthodontics, Boston University, 100 East Newton Street, Boston, MA 02118, USA
5Università di Cagliari, Via Binaghi 4, 09121 Cagliari, Italy
6Department of Surgical Pathology, Medicine, Molecular and Critical Area, Università di Pisa, Lungarno Pacinotti 43, 56126 Pisa, Italy
7Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università di Cagliari, Via Binaghi 4, 09121 Cagliari, Italy

Received 10 January 2014; Accepted 27 April 2014; Published 11 June 2014

Academic Editor: Daniel J. Rinchuse

Copyright © 2014 Mauro Cozzani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Aim. To investigate and compare the efficiency of two appliances for molar distalization: the bone-anchored distal screw (DS) and the traditional tooth-supported distal jet (DJ) for molar distalization and anchorage loss. Methods. Tests (18 subjects) were treated with a DS and controls (18 subjects) were treated with a DJ. Lateral cephalograms were obtained before and at the end of molar distalization and were analysed. Shapiro Wilk test, unpaired -test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were applied according to values distribution. The level was fixed at 0.05. Results. Maxillary first molars were successfully distalized into a Class I relationship in all patients. The mean molar distalization and treatment time were similar in both groups. The DS group exhibited a spontaneous distalization (  mm) of the first premolar with control of anchorage loss, distal tipping, extrusion, and skeletal changes. Conclusions. The DS is an adequate compliance-free distalizing appliance that can be used safely for the correction of Class II malocclusions. In comparison to the traditional DJ, the DS enables not only a good rate of molar distalization, but also a spontaneous distalization of the first premolars.