Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Article Menu
Export Article
More by Authors Links
Article Data
- Views 840
- Dowloads 202
Original Research
Open AccessComparison of Treatment Effects with Modified C-Palatal Plates vs
Greenfield Molar Distalizer Appliances in Adolescents
Comparison of Treatment Effects with Modified C-Palatal Plates vs Greenfield Molar Distalizer Appliances in Adolescents
- Mohammed Alfaifi1
- Jae Hyun Park2,3
- Kiyoshi Tai3,4
- Ja Hyeong Ku5
- Nikhilesh R Vaid6
- Yoon-Ah Kook7,*,
- Ahmed M Shoaib7
- Mohamed Bayome8,9
1The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
2Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, A.T. Still University, Mesa, USA
3Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
4Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Mesa, AZ USA
5Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
6European University College, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
7Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
8Department of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Alhufuf, Saudi Arabia
9Department of Postgraduate Studies, Universidad Autonóma del Paraguay, Asunción, Paraguay
*Corresponding Author(s): Yoon-Ah Kook E-mail: kook2002@catholic.ac.kr
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of study was to evaluate skeletodental and soft tissue treatment effects and the amount of maxillary molar distalization with modified C-palatal plates vs. Greenfield molar distalizer appliances in adolescents. Study design: The samples consisted of pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms collected from 39 patients with Class II malocclusion. The MCPP group was comprised of 21 patients (mean age: 11.7 ± 1.3 years) treated with MCPP appliances while the GMD group included 18 patients (mean age: 11.2 ± 0.9 years) treated with GMD. Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalization process in both groups. From each cephalograpm, twenty-nine variables were measured for analysis and then the two groups were compared. Descriptive statistics, a paired t-test, and multivariate analysis of variance were performed to compare the treatment effects within and between the groups. Results: There was significant treatmentrelated change in the sagittal position of the maxilla and the mandible within each group. However, there were no statistically significant inter-group differences. The mean maxillary first molar distalization was 3.96 mm in the MCPP group vs. 2.85 mm in the GMD group. Both groups showed minimal distal tipping, but the maxillary incisors were significantly extruded by 3.04 ± 0.89 mm (P < .001) in GMD group. There was no significant difference in treatment duration between the groups. Conclusions: The maxillary first molars of both the MCPP and GMD groups were effectively distalized and there were significant skeletal changes in the maxilla. However, the maxillary incisors were significantly extruded in the GMD group.
Keywords
Modified C-palatal plate; Maxillary molar distalization; Greenfield molar distalizer; Skeletal effect
Cite and Share
Mohammed Alfaifi,Jae Hyun Park,Kiyoshi Tai,Ja Hyeong Ku,Nikhilesh R Vaid,Yoon-Ah Kook,Ahmed M Shoaib,Mohamed Bayome. Comparison of Treatment Effects with Modified C-Palatal Plates vs Greenfield Molar Distalizer Appliances in Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2020. 44(3);202-208.
References
1. Nanda RS, Dandajena CT, Nanda R. Nonextraction Class II correction. In: Nanda R, editor. Esthetics and biomechanics in orthodontics. 2nd ed. St Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences, 206, 2015.
2. Bolla E, Muratore F, Carano A, Bowman SJ. Evaluation of maxillary molar distalization with the distal jet: a comparison with other contemporary methods. Angle Orthod, 72:481-494, 2002.
3. Park CO, Sa’aed NL, Bayome M, Park JH, Kook YA, Park YS, Han SH. Comparison of treatment effects between the modified C-palatal plate and cervical pull headgear for total arch distalization in adults. Korean J Orthod, 47:375-383, 2017.
4. Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for Class II non-compliance therapy. J Clin Orthod, 26:706-714, 1992.
5. Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Evaluation of an intraoral maxillary molar distalization technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 110:639-646, 1996.
6. Johes G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatique Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod, 78:332-338, 2008.
7. Johes G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatique Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod, 78:332-338, 2008.
8. Cacciatore G, Alvetro L, Defraia E, Ghislandzoni LT, Franchi L. Active-treatment effects of the Forsus fatique resistant device during comprehensive Class II correction in growing patients. Korean J Orthod, 44:136-142, 2014.
9. Madurantakam P. Fixed or removable function appliances for Class II malocclusion. Evid Based Dent, 17:52-53, 2016.
10. Greenfield RL. Fixed piston appliance for rapid Class II correction. J Clin Orthod, 29:174-183, 1996.
11. Kook YA, Kim SH, Chung KR. A modified palatal anchorage plate for simple and efficient distalization. J Clin Orthod, 44:719-730, 2010.
12. Kinzinger GS, Gulden N, Yildizhan F, Diedrich PR. Efficiency of a skeletonized distal jet appliance supported by miniscrew anchorage for noncompliance maxillary molar distalization. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 136:578-586, 2009.
13. Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO, Kircelli C. Maxillary molar distalization with a bone-anchored pendulum appliance. Angle Orthod, 76: 650-659, 2006.
14. Han SH, Park JH, Jung CY, Kook YA, Hong M. Full-step Class II Correction Using a Modified C-palatal Plate for Total Arch Distalization in an Adolescent. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 42:307-313, 2018.
15. Sa’aed NL, Park CO, Bayome M, Park JH, Kim Y, Kook YA. Skeletal and dental effects of molar distalization using a modified palatal anchorage plate in adolescents. Angle Orthod, 85:657-664, 2015.
16. Kook YA, Bayome M, Trang VT, Kim HJ, Park JH, Kim KB et al. Treatment effects of a modified palatal anchorage plate for distalization evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 146:47-54 2014
17. Shoaib AM, Park JH, Bayome M, Abbas NH, Alfaifi M, Kook YA, Treatment stability after total maxillary arch distalization with modified C-palatal plates in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 156:832-839, 2019.
18. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod, 11:119-129, 2005.
19. Ryu JH, Park JH, T Vu Thi Thu, Bayome M, Kim Y, Kook YA. Palatal bone thickness compared with cone-beam computed tomography in adolescents and adults for mini-implant placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 142:207-212, 2012.
20. Han S, Bayome M, Lee J, Lee YJ, Song HH, Kook YA. Evaluation of palatal bone density in adults and adolescents for application of skeletal anchorage devices. Angle Orthod, 82:625-631, 2012.
21. Lee SM, Park JH, Bayome M, Kim HS, Mo SS, Kook YA. Palatal soft tissue thickness at different ages using an ultrasonic device. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 36:405-409, 2012.
22. Fudalej P, Antoszewska J. Are orthodontic distalizers reinforced with the temporary skeletal anchorage devices effective? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 139:722-729, 2011.
23. Ferguson DJ, Carano A, Bowman SJ, Davis EC, Gutierrez Vega ME, Lee SH, A comparison of two maxillary molar distalizing appliances with the distal jet. World J Orthod, 6:382-390,2005.
24. Joseph AA, Butchart CJ. An evaluation of the pendulum distalizing appliance. Semin Orthod, 6:129-135,2000.
25. Kook YA, Lee DH, Kim SH, Chung KR. Design improvements in the modified C-palatal plate for molar distalization. J Clin Orthod, 47:241- 248, 2013.
26. Burhan AS. Combined treatment with headgear and the Frog appliance for maxillary molar distalization: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Orthod, 43:101-109, 2013.
27. Sar C, Kaya B, Ozsoy O, Ozcirpici AA. Comparison of two implantsupported molar distalization systems. Angle Orthod, 83:460-467, 2013.
28. Buschang PH, Roldan SI, Tadlock LP, Guidelines for assessing the growth and development of orthodontic patients, Semin Orthod, 23:321- 335, 2017.
29. Bussick TJ, McNamara JA Jr. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 117:333-343, 2000.
30. Kinzinger GS, Fritz UB, Sander FG, Diedrich PR. Efficiency of a pendulum appliance for molar distalization related to second and third molar eruption stage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 125:8-23, 2004.
Abstracted / indexed in
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.
Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.
Submission Turnaround Time
Conferences
Top