Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects

Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Mariani, Lisa [verfasserIn] Maino, Giuliano Caprioglio, Alberto

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2014

Schlagwörter:	Molar distalization Pendulum Tad's Class II malocclusion

Anmerkung:	© Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Progress in orthodontics - Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000, 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:15 ; year:2014 ; number:1 ; day:30 ; month:07

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z

Katalog-ID:	SPR036560375

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR036560375
003	DE-627
005	20230519142627.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2014 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR036560375
035			\|a (SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Mariani, Lisa \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects
264		1	\|c 2014
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (
520			\|a Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time.
650		4	\|a Molar distalization \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Pendulum \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Tad's \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Class II malocclusion \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Maino, Giuliano \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Caprioglio, Alberto \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Progress in orthodontics \|d Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 \|g 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli \|w (DE-627)325298319 \|w (DE-600)2035497-6 \|x 2196-1042 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:15 \|g year:2014 \|g number:1 \|g day:30 \|g month:07
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 15 \|j 2014 \|e 1 \|b 30 \|c 07

Indexfelder

author_variant	l m lm g m gm a c ac
matchkey_str	article:21961042:2014----::kltlessovninlnroaacoaeoteramnocasiaocuin
hierarchy_sort_str	2014
publishDate	2014
allfields	10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z doi (DE-627)SPR036560375 (SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mariani, Lisa verfasserin aut Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. Molar distalization (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pendulum (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tad's (dpeaa)DE-He213 Class II malocclusion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maino, Giuliano aut Caprioglio, Alberto aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:15 year:2014 number:1 day:30 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2014 1 30 07
spelling	10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z doi (DE-627)SPR036560375 (SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mariani, Lisa verfasserin aut Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. Molar distalization (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pendulum (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tad's (dpeaa)DE-He213 Class II malocclusion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maino, Giuliano aut Caprioglio, Alberto aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:15 year:2014 number:1 day:30 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2014 1 30 07
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z doi (DE-627)SPR036560375 (SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mariani, Lisa verfasserin aut Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. Molar distalization (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pendulum (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tad's (dpeaa)DE-He213 Class II malocclusion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maino, Giuliano aut Caprioglio, Alberto aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:15 year:2014 number:1 day:30 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2014 1 30 07
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z doi (DE-627)SPR036560375 (SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mariani, Lisa verfasserin aut Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. Molar distalization (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pendulum (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tad's (dpeaa)DE-He213 Class II malocclusion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maino, Giuliano aut Caprioglio, Alberto aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:15 year:2014 number:1 day:30 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2014 1 30 07
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z doi (DE-627)SPR036560375 (SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mariani, Lisa verfasserin aut Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. Molar distalization (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pendulum (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tad's (dpeaa)DE-He213 Class II malocclusion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Maino, Giuliano aut Caprioglio, Alberto aut Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli (DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6 2196-1042 nnns volume:15 year:2014 number:1 day:30 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2014 1 30 07
language	English
source	Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli volume:15 year:2014 number:1 day:30 month:07
sourceStr	Enthalten in Progress in orthodontics 15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli volume:15 year:2014 number:1 day:30 month:07
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Molar distalization Pendulum Tad's Class II malocclusion
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Progress in orthodontics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Mariani, Lisa @@aut@@ Maino, Giuliano @@aut@@ Caprioglio, Alberto @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2014-07-30T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	325298319
id	SPR036560375
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR036560375</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519142627.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2014 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR036560375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mariani, Lisa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Molar distalization</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pendulum</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tad's</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Class II malocclusion</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maino, Giuliano</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Caprioglio, Alberto</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Progress in orthodontics</subfield><subfield code="d">Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)325298319</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2035497-6</subfield><subfield code="x">2196-1042</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:30</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">30</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Mariani, Lisa
spellingShingle	Mariani, Lisa misc Molar distalization misc Pendulum misc Tad's misc Class II malocclusion Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects
authorStr	Mariani, Lisa
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)325298319
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2196-1042
topic_title	Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects Molar distalization (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pendulum (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tad's (dpeaa)DE-He213 Class II malocclusion (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Molar distalization misc Pendulum misc Tad's misc Class II malocclusion
topic_unstemmed	misc Molar distalization misc Pendulum misc Tad's misc Class II malocclusion
topic_browse	misc Molar distalization misc Pendulum misc Tad's misc Class II malocclusion
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Progress in orthodontics
hierarchy_parent_id	325298319
hierarchy_top_title	Progress in orthodontics
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)325298319 (DE-600)2035497-6
title	Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR036560375 (SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e
title_full	Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects
author_sort	Mariani, Lisa
journal	Progress in orthodontics
journalStr	Progress in orthodontics
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2014
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Mariani, Lisa Maino, Giuliano Caprioglio, Alberto
container_volume	15
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Mariani, Lisa
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z
title_sort	skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class ii malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects
title_auth	Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects
abstract	Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (
abstractGer	Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (
abstract_unstemmed	Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time. © Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z
remote_bool	true
author2	Maino, Giuliano Caprioglio, Alberto
author2Str	Maino, Giuliano Caprioglio, Alberto
ppnlink	325298319
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z
up_date	2024-07-03T18:21:44.369Z
_version_	1803583125580677120
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR036560375</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519142627.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2014 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR036560375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s40510-014-0043-z-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mariani, Lisa</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Mariani et al.; licensee springer 2014. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two distalizing protocols featuring different anchorage systems used in patients with class II malocclusion: the MGBM system (skeletal anchorage) and Pendulum (intraoral anchorage). Methods The sample comprised 57 patients who were assigned to one of the two treatments: the MGBM group (30 patients, mean age 13.3 ± 2.3 years) or the Pendulum group (27 patients, mean age 12.8 ± 1.7 years). Three serial cephalograms were obtained at baseline (T0), after molar distalization (T1), and after fixed appliance treatment (T2). Esthetic, skeletal, and dental parameters were considered. Pancherz's superimposition method was used to assess sagittal dental changes. The initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a paired t test or a paired Wilcoxon test. Statistical significance was tested at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001. Results In the MGBM group, the upper molar distalization was achieved in 7 months and showed a mean value of 4.9 mm (ms-PLO); the amount of molar relationship correction was 5.9 mm. In the Pendulum group, the upper molar distalization was obtained in 9 months and showed a mean value of 2.5 mm (ms-PLO), while the molar relationship correction amounted to 4.9 mm. Anterior anchorage loss occurred in both groups, although in the MGBM group, there was less mesial movement of the premolars. Conclusions The MGBM system and the Pendulum appliance are both effective in the correction of class II malocclusions. The MGBM system was found to be more efficient than the Pendulum appliance, producing greater molar distalization in a shorter treatment time.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Molar distalization</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pendulum</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tad's</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Class II malocclusion</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maino, Giuliano</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Caprioglio, Alberto</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Progress in orthodontics</subfield><subfield code="d">Heidelberg : SpringerOpen, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2014), 1 vom: 30. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)325298319</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2035497-6</subfield><subfield code="x">2196-1042</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:30</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">30</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4001913

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?