Comparison of the movement of the upper canine and molar using class II elastics with and without Sliding Jig
a randomized clinical trial
Introduction: For the achievement of a cuspid Class I relationship, intermaxillary class II elastics have been used. They generate retraction in the upper arch and protraction on the lower arch. The Sliding Jig is a direct attachment, which exerts distal force on the molar, enhancing the horizontal vector of intermaxillary elastic.
Objective: to determinate in a period of three months, the type and amount of movement of the upper canine and molar in the sagittal and vertical plane using class II elastics with and without Sliding Jig.
Method: an uncontrolled randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare 15 hemiarches treated with Sliding Jig and 14 treated with class II elastics alone. The movements of each side were evaluated by a calibrated evaluator, using an initial Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) (T1) and a final CBCT (T2), taking three months after the mechanical was installed.
Results: Variables were summarized using the mean and standard deviations with a 95 % confidence interval. For T1 and T2 comparison, a t-Student test was used. The upper molar distalization was greater and the vertical movement of the upper canine was lesser using the Sliding Jig than the only elastics side, with statistically significant differences (p<0,05); non-significant changes in sagittal and vertical movements of the canine or molar inclination were found.
Conclusions: the Sliding Jig was more efficient than class II elastics alone, on the distalization of upper molars and the control of the canine extrusion.
How to Cite
License
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal Revista Nacional de Odontologia before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
McNamara JJ. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981; 51(3): 177–202. doi:10.1043/0003-3219(1981)051<0177:COCIMI>2.0.CO;2.
Vasquez MJ, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JAJ. Dentofacial features of Class II malocclusion associated with maxillary skeletal protrusion: a longitudinal study at the circumpubertal growth period. Am J Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(5): 568.e1-7; discussion 568-9. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.026.
Lim J-K, Jeon HJ, Kim JH. Molar distalization with a miniscrew-anchored sliding jig. J Clin Orthod. 2011; 45(7): 368–377.
Wallshein A. Design of an improved sliding jig. J Clin Orthod. 1974 ;8(8): 473.
Gianelly AA, Vaitas AS, Thomas WM, Berger DG. Distalization of molars with repelling magnets. J. Clin. Orthod. 1988; 22(1): 40–44.
Lucato AS, Amelia S, Vedovello S. Sliding Jig : confecção e mecanismo de ação. Rev Clín Ortodon Dental Press. 2004: 10–17.
Limsiriwong S, Khemaleelakul W, Sirabanchongkran S, Pothacharoen P, Kongtawelert ., Ongchai S, et al. Biochemical and clinical comparisons of
segmental maxillary posterior tooth distal movement between two different force magnitudes. Eur J Orthod. 2018; 40(5): 496–503. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjx092.
Rodríguez E. Elasticos. In: Ortodoncia contemporanea. Diagnóstico y tratamiento. 3a ed. Medellín: AMOLCA; 2019.
Hixon EH, Aasen TO, Clark RA, Klosterman R, Miller SS, Odom WM. On force and tooth movement. Am J Orthod. 1970; 57(5): 476–478.
Kanchana P, Godfrey K. Calibration of force extension and force degradation characteristics of orthodontic latex elastics. Am J Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118(3): 280–287. doi:10.1067/mod.2000.104493.
Philippe J. Mechanical analysis of Class II elastics. J Clin Orthod. 1995; 29(6): 367–372.
Baty DL, Storie DJ, von Fraunhofer JA. Synthetic elastomeric chains: a literature review. Am J Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 1994; 105(6): 536–542. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70137-7.
Tweed C. Clinical Orthodontics. St Louis: Mosby; 1966.
Alves P, Bolognese AM, Gomes Souza MM. Movimiento distal de molares usando o Sliding-Jig. R Clin Orthon Dent Press. 4(6): 83-89. Disponible en: http://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/es/lil-436377Accessed.
Burbano AE, Guerrero YE, Maria de los Reyes Al. Efectividad del gancho deslizante de protracción inferior para corregir clase II división 2. Univ Odontol. 2007; 26(58): 13–17.
Gianelly AA. Distal movement of the maxillary molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114(1): 66–72.
Chung KR, Kim SH, Choo H, Kook YA, Cope JB. Distalization of the mandibular dentition with mini-implants to correct a Class III malocclusion with a midline deviation. Am J Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(1): 135–146. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.023.
Aras I, Pasaoglu A. Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod. 2017; 87(3): 371–376. doi: 10.2319/070216-518.1.
Cazenave C. Class II subdivision in adults: use of miniscrews anchorage in mixed technique. Orthod Fr. 2014; 85(4): 341–354. doi: 10.1051/orthodfr/2014022.
Scarfe WC, Azevedo B, Toghyani S, Farman AG. Cone Beam Computed Tomographic imaging in orthodontics. Aust Dent J. 2017; 62(Suppl 1): 33–50. doi: 10.1111/adj.12479.
Nasseh I, Al-Rawi W. Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Dent Clin North Am. 2018; 62(3): 361–391. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2018.03.002.
Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136(1): 18–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.09.016.
Polat-Ozsoy O, Kircelli BH, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Pektas ZO, Uckan S. Pendulum appliances with 2 anchorage designs: conventional anchorage vs bone anchorage. Am J Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(3): 339.e9-339.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.002.
Patel MP, Janson G, Henriques JFC, de Almeida, RR, de Freitas MR, Pinzan A, et al. Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig and pendulum appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(3): 336–342. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.035.
Anchorage R. Elastic FOR, Upper TB. U.S. Patent Jun 25, 1985;(19).
Quirós Alvarez O. Distalizacion de molares superiores sin auxilio de extraorales. Acta Odontológica Venez. 1993; 31:33–36.
Chiu PP, McNamara JAJ, Franchi L. A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: distal jet versus pendulum. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(3): 353–365. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.031.
Carano A, Testa M. The distal jet for upper molar distalization. J Clin Orthod. 1996; 30(7): 374–380.
Pattabiraman V, Kumari S, Sood R. Mini-implant-supported sliding jig. Orthodontics (Chic.). 2011; 12(4): 396–399.
