The Experts below are selected from a list of 42 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Tiziano Baccetti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Maxillary molar distalization with the dual-force distalizer supported by mini-implants: A clinical study
    American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Giovanni Oberti, Carlos Villegas, Martha Ealo, John Camilo Palacio, Tiziano Baccetti
    Abstract:

    Introduction The objective of this prospective study was to describe the clinical effects of a bone-supported molar Distalizing Appliance, the dual-force distalizer. Methods The study group included 16 patients (mean age, 14.3 years) with Class II molar relationships. Study models and lateral cephalograms were taken before and after the Distalizing movement to record significant dental and skeletal changes (Wilcoxon test). Results The average distalization time was 5 months, with a movement rate of 1.2 mm per month; the distalization amounts were 5.9 ± 1.72 mm at the crown level and 4.4 ± 1.41 mm at the furcation level. The average molar inclination was 5.6° ± 3.7°; this was less than the amount of inclination generated by bone-supported Appliances that use single Distalizing forces. The correlation between inclination and distalization was not significant, indicating predominantly bodily movement. The teeth anterior to the first molar moved distally also; the second premolars distalized an average of 4.26 mm, and the incisors retruded by 0.53 mm. Conclusions The dual-force distalizer is a valid alternative Distalizing Appliance that generates controlled molar distalization with a good rate of movement and no loss of anchorage.

  • Maxillary molar distalization with the dual-force distalizer supported by mini-implants: a clinical study.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists its constituent socie, 2009
    Co-Authors: Giovanni Oberti, Carlos Villegas, Martha Ealo, John Camilo Palacio, Tiziano Baccetti
    Abstract:

    The objective of this prospective study was to describe the clinical effects of a bone-supported molar Distalizing Appliance, the dual-force distalizer. The study group included 16 patients (mean age, 14.3 years) with Class II molar relationships. Study models and lateral cephalograms were taken before and after the Distalizing movement to record significant dental and skeletal changes (Wilcoxon test). The average distalization time was 5 months, with a movement rate of 1.2 mm per month; the distalization amounts were 5.9 +/- 1.72 mm at the crown level and 4.4 +/- 1.41 mm at the furcation level. The average molar inclination was 5.6 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees ; this was less than the amount of inclination generated by bone-supported Appliances that use single Distalizing forces. The correlation between inclination and distalization was not significant, indicating predominantly bodily movement. The teeth anterior to the first molar moved distally also; the second premolars distalized an average of 4.26 mm, and the incisors retruded by 0.53 mm. The dual-force distalizer is a valid alternative Distalizing Appliance that generates controlled molar distalization with a good rate of movement and no loss of anchorage.

  • Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst Appliances.
    American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2003
    Co-Authors: Donald R. Burkhardt, James A. Mcnamara, Tiziano Baccetti
    Abstract:

    Several methods of Class II treatment that do not rely on significant patient compliance have become popular during the last decade, including several versions of the Herbst Appliance and the pendulum or Pendex molar-distalization Appliances. Yet, these 2 general approaches theoretically have opposite treatment effects, one presumably enhancing mandibular growth, and the other moving the maxillary teeth posteriorly. This study examined the treatment effects produced by 2 types of the Herbst Appliance (acrylic splint and stainless-steel crown) followed by fixed Appliances, and the pendulum Appliance followed by fixed Appliances. For each of the 3 treatment groups, lateral cephalograms were analyzed before the start of treatment (T1) and after the second phase of treatment (T2). Patients were matched according to age and sex. The comprehensive treatment time for the pendulum group was 31.6 months, and the acrylic and crowned Herbst groups were treated for 29.5 months and 28.0 months, respectively. Overall from T1 to T2, there were no statistically significant differences in mandibular growth among the 3 groups. Skeletal changes accounted for a larger portion of molar correction in the Herbst treatment groups than in the pendulum group. Patients in the pendulum group had an increase in the mandibular plane angle. Conversely, the mandibular plane angle in patients treated with either Herbst Appliance closed slightly from T1 to T2. At T2, the chin points (pogonion) of patients in both Herbst groups, however, were located slightly more anteriorly than were the chin points of the pendulum patients. It is likely that the slight downward and backward rotation of the mandible occurring during treatment in the pendulum patients accounted for much of this difference. The treatment effects produced by the 2 types of Herbst Appliance were similar at T2, in spite of their differences in design. It is important not to generalize the findings of this comparison beyond the Appliance systems evaluated. The 2 general approaches we evaluated involved a substantial dentoalveolar component in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. A comparison of a molar-Distalizing Appliance such as the pendulum with other types of functional Appliances might yield differing results.

Carano A - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A comparison of two maxillary molar Distalizing Appliances with the distal jet.
    World journal of orthodontics, 2005
    Co-Authors: Donald J. Ferguson, Carano A
    Abstract:

    AIMS Previous studies on maxillary molar distalization have usually concentrated on only one Appliance and featured small sample sizes. The purpose of this retrospective study was two-fold: (1) to determine the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of 3 molar distalization Appliances, 2 of which do not depend upon patient compliance (ie, distal jet and Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance) and 1 that does (ie, sagittal Appliance combined with cervical headgear); and (2) to determine differences in treatment effects among the 3 Appliances. METHODS Pretreatment and post-distalization cephalometric radiographs were obtained for each Appliance (14 females and 11 males for the distal jet; 12 females and 13 males for the Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance; and 17 females and 13 males for the sagittal Appliance with headgear). RESULTS Pretreatment to transition evaluation showed significant distal movement of the first molars for the distal jet (3.4 mm), the Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance (3.9 mm), and the sagittal Appliance with headgear (2.1 mm). Distal tipping of the first molar was seen in all samples, but significantly more so in the Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance (6.5 degrees +/- 6.6) and the sagittal Appliance with headgear (13.5 degrees +/- 8. 1) than in the distal jet (3.2 degrees +/- 2.8). CONCLUSIONS Maxillary molar distalization was effective using the distal jet, the Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance, and the sagittal Appliance with headgear, but better control of molar bodily movement was reported with the distal jet.

Giovanni Oberti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Maxillary molar distalization with the dual-force distalizer supported by mini-implants: A clinical study
    American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2009
    Co-Authors: Giovanni Oberti, Carlos Villegas, Martha Ealo, John Camilo Palacio, Tiziano Baccetti
    Abstract:

    Introduction The objective of this prospective study was to describe the clinical effects of a bone-supported molar Distalizing Appliance, the dual-force distalizer. Methods The study group included 16 patients (mean age, 14.3 years) with Class II molar relationships. Study models and lateral cephalograms were taken before and after the Distalizing movement to record significant dental and skeletal changes (Wilcoxon test). Results The average distalization time was 5 months, with a movement rate of 1.2 mm per month; the distalization amounts were 5.9 ± 1.72 mm at the crown level and 4.4 ± 1.41 mm at the furcation level. The average molar inclination was 5.6° ± 3.7°; this was less than the amount of inclination generated by bone-supported Appliances that use single Distalizing forces. The correlation between inclination and distalization was not significant, indicating predominantly bodily movement. The teeth anterior to the first molar moved distally also; the second premolars distalized an average of 4.26 mm, and the incisors retruded by 0.53 mm. Conclusions The dual-force distalizer is a valid alternative Distalizing Appliance that generates controlled molar distalization with a good rate of movement and no loss of anchorage.

  • Maxillary molar distalization with the dual-force distalizer supported by mini-implants: a clinical study.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists its constituent socie, 2009
    Co-Authors: Giovanni Oberti, Carlos Villegas, Martha Ealo, John Camilo Palacio, Tiziano Baccetti
    Abstract:

    The objective of this prospective study was to describe the clinical effects of a bone-supported molar Distalizing Appliance, the dual-force distalizer. The study group included 16 patients (mean age, 14.3 years) with Class II molar relationships. Study models and lateral cephalograms were taken before and after the Distalizing movement to record significant dental and skeletal changes (Wilcoxon test). The average distalization time was 5 months, with a movement rate of 1.2 mm per month; the distalization amounts were 5.9 +/- 1.72 mm at the crown level and 4.4 +/- 1.41 mm at the furcation level. The average molar inclination was 5.6 degrees +/- 3.7 degrees ; this was less than the amount of inclination generated by bone-supported Appliances that use single Distalizing forces. The correlation between inclination and distalization was not significant, indicating predominantly bodily movement. The teeth anterior to the first molar moved distally also; the second premolars distalized an average of 4.26 mm, and the incisors retruded by 0.53 mm. The dual-force distalizer is a valid alternative Distalizing Appliance that generates controlled molar distalization with a good rate of movement and no loss of anchorage.

Donald J. Ferguson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A comparison of two maxillary molar Distalizing Appliances with the distal jet.
    World journal of orthodontics, 2005
    Co-Authors: Donald J. Ferguson, Carano A
    Abstract:

    AIMS Previous studies on maxillary molar distalization have usually concentrated on only one Appliance and featured small sample sizes. The purpose of this retrospective study was two-fold: (1) to determine the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of 3 molar distalization Appliances, 2 of which do not depend upon patient compliance (ie, distal jet and Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance) and 1 that does (ie, sagittal Appliance combined with cervical headgear); and (2) to determine differences in treatment effects among the 3 Appliances. METHODS Pretreatment and post-distalization cephalometric radiographs were obtained for each Appliance (14 females and 11 males for the distal jet; 12 females and 13 males for the Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance; and 17 females and 13 males for the sagittal Appliance with headgear). RESULTS Pretreatment to transition evaluation showed significant distal movement of the first molars for the distal jet (3.4 mm), the Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance (3.9 mm), and the sagittal Appliance with headgear (2.1 mm). Distal tipping of the first molar was seen in all samples, but significantly more so in the Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance (6.5 degrees +/- 6.6) and the sagittal Appliance with headgear (13.5 degrees +/- 8. 1) than in the distal jet (3.2 degrees +/- 2.8). CONCLUSIONS Maxillary molar distalization was effective using the distal jet, the Greenfield molar Distalizing Appliance, and the sagittal Appliance with headgear, but better control of molar bodily movement was reported with the distal jet.

Vincenzo Piras - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Comparison of Maxillary Molar Distalization with an Implant-Supported Distal Jet and a Traditional Tooth-Supported Distal Jet Appliance
    International journal of dentistry, 2014
    Co-Authors: Mauro Cozzani, M. Pasini, Francesco Zallio, Robert Ritucci, Sabrina Mutinelli, Laura Mazzotta, Maria Rita Giuca, Vincenzo Piras
    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.