Anteroposterior dentoalveolar effects with cervical headgear and pendulum appliance: a systematic review

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the maxillary dental effects of cervical headgear and pendulum appliance during distalization of permanent maxillary first molars. METHODS: A literature survey from databases covering the period from 1956 to August 2008 was carried out. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) were included. Two reviewers selected and extracted the data independently, and also assessed the quality of the retrieved studies. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 48 articles, of which 3 met the inclusion criteria. Distal molar movement with headgear versus pendulum appliance was identified. In all studies selected, the methods used to detect and analyze the distal molar movement were valid and generally well know. All articles included an error analysis method and considered the risk for confounding factors, but only one study used blinding in measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The studies showed that both cervical headgear with patient compliance and a non-compliance pendulum appliance are very effective in distalizing maxillary molars. However, additional RCTs with larger samples of both molar distalizing appliances are needed to confirm this result and provide further reliable scientific evidence.

distal molar movement; cervical traction; pendulum appliances

• ¹
  Wieslander L. Early or late cervical traction therapy of Class II malocclusion in the mixed dentition. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1975;67(4):432-439.
• ²
  Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for Class II non-compliance therapy. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1992;26(11):706-714.
• ³
  Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Evaluation of an intraoral maxillary molar distalization technique. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1996;110(6):639-646.
• ⁴
  Byloff F, Darendeliler M. Distal molar movement using the pendulum appliance. Angle Orthodontist 1997;67(3):249-260.
• ⁵
  Jones RD, White JM. Rapid Class II molar correction with an open-coil jig. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1992;26(10):661-664.
• ⁶
  Bondemark L. A comparative analysis of distal maxillary molar movement produced by a new lingual intra-arch Ni-Ti coil appliance and a magnetic appliance. European Journal of Orthodontics 2000;22(6):683-695.
• ⁷
  Needleman I, Moles D, Worthington H. Evidence-based Periodontology, systematic reviews and research quality. Periodontol 2005;37(1):12-28.
• ⁸
  Montenegro R, Needleman I, Moles D, Tonetti M. Quality of RCTs in periodontology-a systematic review. Journal Dental Research 2002;81(12):866-870.
• ⁹
  Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for Class II non-compliance therapy. Journal Clinical Orthodontic 1992;26(11):706-714.
• ¹⁰
  Tanner T, Yukay F, Pehlivanoglu M, Çakirer B. A comparative analysis of maxillary tooth movement produced by cervical headgear and Pend-X appliance. Angle Orthodontist 2003;73(6):686-691.
• ¹¹
  Mossaz CF, Byloff FK, Kiliaridis S. Cervical headgear vs pendulum appliance for the treatment of moderate skeletal Class II malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007;132(5):616-623.
• ¹²
  Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Gungor-Acar A, Kircelli BH. Soft tissue profile after distal molar movement with a pendulum K-loop appliance versus cervical headgear. Angle Orthodontist 2008;78(2):317-323.
• ¹³
  Dissemination. NCfRa. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm Accessed June 5, 2008.
• ¹⁴
  Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33(1):159-174.
• ¹⁵
  Antczak AA, Tang J, Chalmers TC. Quality assessment of randomized control trials in dental research. II. RESULTS: periodontal research. Journal Periodontal Research 1986;21(4):315-321.
• ¹⁶
  Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clinical Trials 1996;17(1):1-12.
• ¹⁷
  Cook A, Sellke T, Begole E. Control of the vertical dimension in class II correction using a cervical headgear and lower arch in growing patients Part I. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1994;106(4):376-388.
• ¹⁸
  Cetlin N, Ten H. Nonextration treatment. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1983;17(4):396-413.
• ¹⁹
  Gianelly AA. Distal movement of the maxillary molars. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1998;114(1):66-72.
• ²⁰
  Quick AN, Harris AMP. Molar distalization with a modified distal jet appliance. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2000; 34(3):419-423.
• ²¹
  Fortini A, Lupoli M, Parri M. The first class appliance for rapid molar distalization. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1999; 33(2):322-328.
• ²²
  Kinzinger GSM, Fritz UB, Sander FG, Diedrich PR. Efficiency of a pendulum appliance for molar distalization related to second and third molar eruption stage. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2004;125(1):8-23.
• ²³
  Colditz G, Miller J, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. Medical Statement Medicine 1989;8(4):411-454.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  04 June 2013
• Date of issue
  Dec 2012

History

• Received
  02 May 2012
• Accepted
  08 June 2012