The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cone-beam computed tomography-guided three-dimensional evaluation of treatment effectiveness of the Frog appliance

  • Li, Mujia (Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Su, Xiaoxia (Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Li, Yang (Department of Orthodontics, Xi'an No.1 Hospital) ;
  • Li, Xianglin (Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Si, Xinqin (Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University)
  • Received : 2018.09.05
  • Accepted : 2019.01.29
  • Published : 2019.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Frog appliance in three dimensions by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Methods: Forty patients (21 boys and 19 girls), averaged 11.7 years old, with an Angle Class II division 1 malocclusion were included in our study. They had either late mixed dentition or early permanent dentition, and the maxillary second molars had not yet erupted. All patients underwent CBCT before and after the treatment for measuring changes in the maxillary first molars, second premolars, central incisors, and profile. Paired-samples t-test was used to compare the mean difference in each variable before treatment and after the first phase of treatment. Results: The maxillary first molars were effectively distalized by 4.25 mm (p < 0.001) and 3.53 mm (p < 0.05) in the dental crown and root apex, respectively. The tipping increased by $2.25^{\circ}$, but the difference was not significant. Moreover the teeth moved buccally by 0.84 mm (p < 0.05) and 2.87 mm (p < 0.01) in the mesiobuccal and distobuccal cusps, respectively, whereas no significant changes occurred in the root apex. Regarding the anchorage parts, the angle of the maxillary central incisor's long axis to the sella-nasion plane increased by $2.76^{\circ}$ (p < 0.05) and the distance from the upper lip to the esthetic plane decreased by 0.52 mm (p = 0.01). Conclusions: The Frog appliance effectively distalized the maxillary molars with an acceptable degree of tipping, distobuccal rotation, and buccal crown torque, with only slight anchorage loss. Furthermore, CBCT image demonstrated that it is a simple and reliable method for three-dimensional analysis.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander SA. Diagnosis and treatment planning in orthodontics. Curr Opin Dent 1992;2:9-13.
  2. Alexander RG. The vari-simplex discipline. Part 2. Nonextraction treatment. J Clin Orthod 1983;17:474-82.
  3. Ludwig B, Glasl B, Kinzinger GS, Walde KC, Lisson JA. The skeletal frog appliance for maxillary molar distalization. J Clin Orthod 2011;45:77-84; quiz 91.
  4. Byloff FK, Darendeliler MA. Distal molar movement using the pendulum appliance. Part 1: clinical and radiological evaluation. Angle Orthod 1997;67:249-60.
  5. Bondemark L, Kurol J. Distalization of maxillary first and second molars simultaneously with repelling magnets. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:264-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.4.264
  6. Escobar SA, Tellez PA, Moncada CA, Villegas CA, Latorre CM, Oberti G. Distalization of maxillary molars with the bone-supported pendulum: a clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:545-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.08.012
  7. Chiu PP, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: distal jet versus pendulum. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:353-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.031
  8. Mavropoulos A, Karamouzos A, Kiliaridis S, Papadopoulos MA. Efficiency of noncompliance simultaneous first and second upper molar distalization: a three-dimensional tooth movement analysis. Angle Orthod 2005;75:532-9.
  9. Nalcaci R, Kocoglu-Altan AB, Bicakci AA, Ozturk F, Babacan H. A reliable method for evaluating upper molar distalization: superimposition of three-dimensional digital models. Korean J Orthod 2015;45:82-8. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.82
  10. Duran GS, Gorgulu S, Dindaroglu F. Three-dimensional analysis of tooth movements after palatal miniscrew-supported molar distalization. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:188-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.024
  11. Hourfar J, Ludwig B, Kanavakis G. An active, skeletally anchored transpalatal appliance for derotation, distalization and vertical control of maxillary first molars. J Orthod 2014;41 Suppl 1:S24-32. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000102
  12. Uzuner FD, Kaygisiz E, Unver F, Tortop T. Comparison of transverse dental changes induced by the palatally applied Frog appliance and buccally applied Karad's integrated distalizing system. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:96-103. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.2.96
  13. Kapila SD, Nervina JM. CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44:20140282. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140282
  14. Ozalp O, Tezerisener HA, Kocabalkan B, Buyukkaplan US, Ozarslan MM, Simsek Kaya G, et al. Comparing the precision of panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in avoiding anatomical structures critical to dental implant surgery: a retrospective study. Imaging Sci Dent 2018;48:269-75. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2018.48.4.269
  15. Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000 2014;66:203-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12051
  16. 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 2004;125:8-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.002
  17. Flores-Mir C, McGrath L, Heo G, Major PW. Efficiency of molar distalization associated with second and third molar eruption stage. Angle Orthod 2013;83:735-42. https://doi.org/10.2319/081612-658.1
  18. Joseph AA, Butchart CJ. An evaluation of the pendulum distalizing appliance. Semin Orthod 2000;6:129-35. https://doi.org/10.1053/od.2000.5901
  19. Kang JM, Park JH, Bayome M, Oh M, Park CO, Kook YA, et al. A three-dimensional finite element analysis of molar distalization with a palatal plate, pendulum, and headgear according to molar eruption stage. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:290-300. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.5.290
  20. Burhan AS. Combined treatment with headgear and the Frog appliance for maxillary molar distalization: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Orthod 2013;43:101-9. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.2.101
  21. Bayram M, Nur M, Kilkis D. The frog appliance for upper molar distalization: a case report. Korean J Orthod 2010;40:50-60. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2010.40.1.50
  22. Kinzinger G, Syree C, Fritz U, Diedrich P. Molar distalization with different pendulum appliances: in vitro registration of orthodontic forces and moments in the initial phase. J Orofac Orthop 2004;65:389-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-004-0406-z
  23. Kinzinger GS, Wehrbein H, Diedrich PR. Molar distalization with a modified pendulum appliance--in vitro analysis of the force systems and in vivo study in children and adolescents. Angle Orthod 2005;75:558-67.
  24. Karlsson I, Bondemark L. Intraoral maxillary molar distalization. Angle Orthod 2006;76:923-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/110805-390
  25. Byloff FK, Darendeliler MA, Clar E, Darendeliler A. Distal molar movement using the pendulum appliance. Part 2: the effects of maxillary molar root uprighting bends. Angle Orthod 1997;67:261-70.
  26. Chaques-Asensi J, Kalra V. Effects of the pendulum appliance on the dentofacial complex. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:254-7.
  27. Bussick TJ, McNamara JA Jr. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:333-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70238-1
  28. Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Pauls A, Yamaguchi S, Ludwig B, Drescher D. Treatment efficiency of mini-implant-borne distalization depending on age and second-molar eruption. J Orofac Orthop 2014;75:118-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0199-z
  29. Fudalej P, Antoszewska J. Are orthodontic distalizers reinforced with the temporary skeletal anchorage devices effective? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:722-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.01.019

Cited by

  1. Effect of second molar eruption on efficiency of maxillary first molar distalization using Carriere distalizer appliance vol.26, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.26.4.e2119146.oar