Korean J Orthod.  2013 Apr;43(2):101-109. 10.4041/kjod.2013.43.2.101.

Combined treatment with headgear and the Frog appliance for maxillary molar distalization: a randomized controlled trial

• Burhan AS

• KMID: 1975151
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.2.101

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficiency of the Frog appliance (FA) alone or in combination with headgear for distalizing the maxillary molars.
METHODS
Fifty patients (25 males and 25 females) aged 12.6 - 16.7 years who received treatment for Class II malocclusion at the Orthodontic Clinic of Al-Baath University were selected for this study and randomly divided into 2 equal groups. Maxillary molar distalization was achieved using the FA alone (group 1) or a combination of the FA with high-pull headgear worn at night (group 2). Lateral cephalograms were obtained before and after treatment.
RESULTS
The maxillary molars moved distally by 5.51 and 5.93 mm in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Distal movements were associated with axial tipping by 4.96degrees and 1.25degrees, and with loss of anchorage by mesial movement of the second maxillary premolars by 2.70 and 0.90 mm in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The combined use of the FA and nighttime high-pull headgear decreased the distalization time and improved the ratio of maxillary molar distalization movement relative to the overall opening space between the first maxillary molars and second premolars.
CONCLUSIONS
The FA can effectively distalize the maxillary molars, this distalization associates with some unfavorable changes. Nighttime use of high-pull headgear combined with the FA can reduce these unfavorable changes and improve treatment outcomes.

Keyword

Headgear; Malocclusion; Molar distalization; Orthodontic appliances

MeSH Terms

Aged
Bicuspid
Humans
Male
Malocclusion
Molar
Orthodontic Appliances

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Patient flow chart.

• 

  Figure 2 A, Components of the Frog appliance. B, The Frog appliance after fabrication.

• 

  Figure 3 Intraoral view of the Frog appliance. A, Before treatment. B, After treatment.

• 

  Figure 4 Intraoral view of the Frog appliance with the face bow in place.

• 

  Figure 5 The Frog appliance. A, Before treatment. B, After treatment. C, Overcorrection.

• 

  Figure 6 Cephalometric dental measurements used in the study. A, Linear measurements. B, Angular measurements. S, Sella; N, nasion; Po, porion; PT, pterygoid; FHP, Frankfurt plane; Or, orbitale; ANS, anterior nasal spine; PNS, posterior nasal spine; SPP, ANS-PNS; MP, mandibular plane; PTV, pterygoid vertical plane; Me, Menton.

Reference

1. Bolla E, Muratore F, Carano A, Bowman SJ. Evaluation of maxillary molar distalization with the distal jet: a comparison with other contemporary methods. Angle Orthod. 2002. 72:481–494.

2. Bondemark L, Karlsson I. Extraoral vs intraoral appliance for distal movement of maxillary first molars: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod. 2005. 75:699–706.

3. Haydar S, Uner O. Comparison of Jones jig molar distalization appliance with extraoral traction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. 117:49–53.

4. Angelieri F, de Almeida RR, Janson G, Castanha Henriques JF, Pinzan A. Comparison of the effects produced by headgear and pendulum appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2008. 30:572–579.

5. El-Mangoury NH. Orthodontic cooperation. Am J Orthod. 1981. 80:604–622.

6. Egolf RJ, BeGole EA, Upshaw HS. Factors associated with orthodontic patient compliance with intraoral elastic and headgear wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 97:336–348.

7. Koltun A, Stone GC. Past and current trends in patient noncompliance research: focus on diseases, regimens-programs, and provider-disciplines. J Compliance Health Care. 1986. 1:21–32.

8. Nanda RS, Kierl MJ. Prediction of cooperation in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992. 102:15–21.

9. Cureton SL, Regennitter FJ, Yancey JM. Clinical versus quantitative assessment of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993. 104:277–284.

10. Itoh T, Tokuda T, Kiyosue S, Hirose T, Matsumoto M, Chaconas SJ. Molar distalization with repelling magnets. J Clin Orthod. 1991. 25:611–617.

11. Gianelly AA, Bednar J, Dietz VS. Japanese NiTi coils used to move molars distally. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991. 99:564–566.

12. Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Evaluation of an intraoral maxillary molar distalization technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996. 110:639–646.

13. Carano A, Testa M, Bowman SJ. The distal jet simplified and updated. J Clin Orthod. 2002. 36:586–590.

14. Locatelli R, Bednar J, Dietz VS, Gianelly AA. Molar distalization with superelastic NiTi wire. J Clin Orthod. 1992. 26:277–279.

15. Kalra V. The K-loop molar distalizing appliance. J Clin Orthod. 1995. 29:298–301.

16. 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.

17. Orton HS, Battagel JM, Ferguson R, Ferman AM. Distal movement of buccal segments with the "en masse" removable appliance-its value in treating patients with mild Class II, Division 1 malocclusions: Part I, clinical techniques (how to do it). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996. 109:234–243.

18. Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Güngör-Acar A, Kircelli BH. Soft tissue profile after distal molar movement with a pendulum K-loop appliance versus cervical headgear. Angle Orthod. 2008. 78:317–323.

19. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers JJ, Schulhof RJ. Bioprogressive therapy. 1979. 1st ed. Denver: Colo: Rocky Mountain Orthodontics Inc.;249–254.

20. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. 1940. New York: Interscience Publications.

21. Bayram M, Nur M, Kilkis D. The frog appliance for upper molar distalization: a case report. Korean J Orthod. 2010. 40:50–60.

22. 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. 128:353–365.

23. Bussick TJ, McNamara JA Jr. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. 117:333–343.

24. Patel MP, Janson G, Henriques JF, 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. 135:336–342.

25. Kinzinger GS, Gross U, Fritz UB, Diedrich PR. Anchorage quality of deciduous molars versus premolars for molar distalization with a pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005. 127:314–323.

26. Brickman CD, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Evaluation of the Jones jig appliance for distal molar movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. 118:526–534.

27. Ngantung V, Nanda RS, Bowman SJ. Posttreatment evaluation of the distal jet appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001. 120:178–185.