Maksiller Molar Distalizasyonunda Minivida Destekli Pendulum ve Beneslider Apareylerinin Dental ve Ýskeletsel Etkilerinin Karþýlaþtýrýlmasý: Pilot Çalýþma

GÝRÝÞ ve AMAÇ: Bu çalýþmanýn amacý, sert damaða yerleþtirilen minividalardan destek alan iki maksiller molar distalizasyon sisteminin dentoalveoler ve iskeletsel etkilerini karþýlaþtýrmaktýr.
YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Çalýþmaya bilateral sýnýf II molar iliþkiye sahip 24 hasta dahil edilmiþtir. Bu hastalarýn yarýsýna minivida destekli pendulum (Grup 1; n=12), diðer yarýsýna Beneslider apareyi (Grup 2; n=12) uygulanmýþtýr. Hastalarýn distalizasyon baþý (T0) ve sonunda (T1) alýnan lateral sefalometrik filmleri incelenerek gruplar arasý farklar deðerlendirilmiþtir.
BULGULAR: Birinci molarlardaki distal yönlü devrilme Grup 1’de (12,9o) Grup 2’ye (3,9o) göre anlamlý düzeyde daha fazladýr. Gruplar distalizasyon miktarý bakýmýndan karþýlaþtýrýldýðýnda kron seviyesindeki hareket (Grup 1, 3 mm; Grup 2, 3.2 mm) benzer bulunmuþtur. Buna karþýn kök hareketi gerek trifurka gerekse de kök ucu seviyesinde Grup 2’de (U6trifurka-VRP, 1,7 mm; U6kök ucu-VRP, 1,1 mm) Grup 1’e göre (U6trifurka-VRP, 1,1 mm; U6kök ucu-VRP, 0 mm) daha fazladýr. Distalizasyon hýzý Grup 1’de 0,43 mm/ay, Grup 2’de ise 0,34 mm/ay ile benzerdir. Ýskeletsel parametreler sadece Grup 1’de anlamlý deðiþimler sergilemiþ; SNB azalmýþ, ANB ve GoGnSN açýlarý artmýþtýr.
TARTIÞMA ve SONUÇ: Minivida destekli pendulum apareyi, molarlarda anlamlý düzeyde daha fazla distal devrilmeye neden olmakta ve kök ucu seviyesinde hareket oluþturamamaktadýr. Beneslider apareyi ise molarlarda daha az devrilme, kök seviyesinde daha fazla distalizasyon ve iskeletsel parametrelerde minimal deðiþikliklerle birlikte minivida destekli pendulum apareyine göre daha etkindir.

Comparison of Dental and Skeletal Effects Of Miniscrew Supported Pendulum and Beneslider Appliances in Maxillary Molar Distalization: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of two maxillary molar distalization systems supported by miniscrews.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients with bilateral class II molar relationship were included in this study. Half of the patients were treated with the miniscrew-supported pendulum (Group 1) while the other half with the Beneslider (Group 2). Lateral cephalometric films taken at the beginning of the treatment and at end of distalization were examined to study the differences between the groups.
RESULTS: The most significant difference was the distal tipping of maxillary first molars which was significantly higher in Group 1 (12.9o) than in Group 2 (3.9o). When the groups were compared in terms of the amount of distalization, crowns moved similarly (Group 1, 3 mm; Group 2, 3.2 mm); however, the amount of root distalization both at trifurcation and apical levels were higher in Group 2 (U6trifurcation-VRP, 1.7 mm; U6apex-VRP, 1.1 mm) when compared to Group 1 (U6trifurcation-VRP, 1.1 mm; U6apex-VRP, 0 mm). Distalization rate was 0.43 mm/month in Group 1 and 0.34 mm/ month in Group 2, presenting similar values. Skeletal parameters showed significant changes only in Group 1 in which SNB angle was decreased, ANB and GoGnSN angles were increased.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The miniscrew-supported pendulum appliance led to more distal tipping of the molars and failed to produce movement at the apical level. The Beneslider, on the other hand, was found to be more effective with less tipping, more distalization at the apical level, and minimal changes in the skeletal parameters.