title: A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: distal jet versus pendulum.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This study compared the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects on Class II malocclusions of the distal jet with concurrent full fixed appliances and the pendulum appliance both followed by fixed appliances.
  
  
  METHODS
  The 2 samples each consisted of 32 subjects (19 girls and 13 boys) with mean ages at the start of treatment of 12 years 3 months in the distal jet group and 12 years 6 months in the pendulum group. The durations of the distalization phase of treatment were 10 months in the distal jet group and 7 months in the pendulum group, and the durations of the second phase of treatment with fixed appliances were 18 months in the distal jet group and 24 months in the pendulum group. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed at 3 observation times: before treatment, after distalization, and after orthodontic treatment.
  
  
  RESULTS
  During molar distalization, the pendulum subjects showed significantly more distal molar movement and significantly less anchorage loss at both the premolars and the maxillary incisors than the distal jet subjects. The distal jet used simultaneously with fixed appliances and the pendulum were equal in their ability to move the molars bodily. Very little change occurred in the inclination of the mandibular plane at the end of the 2-phase treatment (less than 1 degrees ) in both groups. At the end of comprehensive treatment, the maxillary first molars were 0.6 mm mesial to their original positions in the distal jet group and 0.5 mm distal in the pendulum group. Nevertheless, total molar correction was identical in the 2 groups (3.0 mm), and both appliances were equally effective in achieving a Class I molar relationship. Simultaneous edgewise orthodontic treatment during molar distalization in the distal jet group shortened the overall treatment time but produced significant flaring of both maxillary and mandibular incisors at the end of treatment. The impact on the soft tissue profile was minimal with both appliances.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 48109, USA.
authors.forename: Patricia P
authors.initials: PP
authors.lastname: Chiu
authors.forename: James A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: McNamara
authors.forename: Lorenzo
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Franchi
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D002508:Cephalometry; D002648:Child; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008312:Malocclusion, Angle Class II / Q000628:therapy*; D008437:Maxilla; D008963:Molar; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D016382:Orthodontic Appliance Design; D009967:Orthodontic Appliances; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014087:Tooth Movement Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation*