Comparison between direct vs indirect anchorage in two miniscrew-supported distalizing devices

• DOI: 10.2319/040715-231.1
• Publication Date: 2015-07-29T13:46:24Z
• Authors: Mauro Cozzani; Mattia Fontana; Giuliano Maino; Giovanna Maino; Lucia Palpacelli; Alberto Caprioglio
• Keywords: Male; Adolescent; Tooth Movement Techniques; Cephalometry; Malocclusion, Angle Class II; Molar; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; Maxilla; Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures; Humans; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Female; Class II malocclusion; Intraoral distalizing appliances; Miniscrews; Molar distalization; Skeletal anchorage; Orthodontics; Child

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare two distalizing devices supported by palatal miniscrews, the MGBM System (MGBM) and the Distal Screw appliance (DS), in dental Class II patients.

Materials and Methods: Pretreatment (T1) and postdistalization (T2) lateral cephalograms of 53 Class II malocclusion subjects were examined. MGBM consisted of 29 patients (16 males, 13 females) with a mean pretreatment age of 12.3 ± 1.5 years; DS consisted of 24 patients (11 males, 13 females) with a mean pretreatment age of 11.3 ± 1.2 years. The mean distalization time was 6 ± 2 months for MGBM and 9 ± 2 months for DS. Initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a Student’s t-test.

Results: Maxillary superimpositions showed that the maxillary first molar distalized an average of 5.5 mm in the MGBM and 3.2 mm in the DS between T1 and T2; distal molar tipping was greater in the MGBM (10.3°) than in the DS (3.0°). First premolar showed a mean mesial movement of 1.4 mm, with a mesial tipping of 4.4° in the MGBM; on the contrary, first premolar showed a distal movement of 2.2 mm, with a distal tipping of 6.2°, in the DS.

Conclusions: The MGBM system resulted in greater distal molar movement and less treatment time, resulting in more efficient movement than was associated with the DS; DS showed less molar tipping during distalization.