We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Orthodontics
Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
www.quintessence-publishing.com
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Orthodontics 8 (2007), No. 1     15. Jan. 2007
Orthodontics 8 (2007), No. 1  (15.01.2007)

Page 37-44


A Comparative Study of Profile Changes with 3 Different Distalization Mechanics
Sayinsu, Korkmaz / Isik, Fulya / Ülgen, Ayse Nur
Aim: To compare the effects of 3 molar distalization appliances, the intraoral bodily molar distalizer, the Keles slider, and the acrylic cervical occipital appliance, from the viewpoint of skeletal and soft tissue changes.
Material and methods: Lateral cephalometric films taken before and immediately after distalization of 51 patients comprised the study material of this investigation. The lateral cephalograms were digitized and measured with Dolphin Imaging 9.0.
Results: The intraoral bodily molar distalizer showed the most forward movement of the lips, with respect to E-plane. The maxillary incisal proclination presented by the U1-SN angle revealed that the most prominent proclination was caused by the intraoral bodily molar distalizer, followed by the acrylic cervical occipital appliance. The appliance that showed the most vertical opening was the intraoral bodily molar distalizer, followed by the acrylic cervical occipital appliance. ANB is the only sagittal skeletal parameter with a change: an increase with the intraoral bodily molar distalizer.
Conclusion: The most prominent soft tissue profile changes were observed with the intraoral bodily molar distalizer. The acrylic cervical occipital appliance and the Keles slider generated milder changes on the profile. When selecting the appropriate method for maxillary molar distalization, the initial soft tissue profile should be considered.