Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Oct 23;2013(10):CD008375.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008375.pub2.

Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents

Safa Jambi et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: When orthodontic treatment is provided with fixed appliances, it is sometimes necessary to move the upper molar teeth backwards (distalise) to create space or help to overcome anchorage requirements. This can be achieved with the use of extraoral or intraoral appliances. The most common appliance is extraoral headgear, which requires considerable patient co-operation. Further, reports of serious injuries have been published. Intraoral appliances have been developed to overcome such shortcomings. The comparative effects of extraoral and intraoral appliances have not been fully evaluated.

Objectives: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents.

Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 10 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 10 December 2012). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

Selection criteria: Randomised clinical trials involving the use of removable or fixed orthodontic appliances intended to distalise upper first molars in children and adolescents.

Data collection and analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify the inclusion criteria of the studies.

Main results: Ten studies, reporting data from 354 participants, were included in this review, the majority of which were carried out in a university dental hospital setting. The studies were published between 2005 and 2011 and were conducted in Europe and in Brazil. The age range of participants was from nine to 15 years, with an even distribution of males and females in seven of the studies, and a slight predominance of female patients in three of the studies. The quality of the studies was generally poor; seven studies were at an overall high risk of bias, three studies were at an unclear risk of bias, and we judged no study to be at low risk of bias.We carried out random-effects meta-analyses as appropriate for the primary clinical outcomes of movement of upper first molars (mm), and loss of anterior anchorage, where there were sufficient data reported in the primary studies. Four studies, involving 159 participants, compared a distalising appliance to an untreated control. Meta-analyses were not undertaken for all primary outcomes due to incomplete reporting of all summary statistics, expected outcomes, and differences between the types of appliances. The degree and direction of molar movement and loss of anterior anchorage varied with the type of appliance. Four studies, involving 150 participants, compared a distalising appliance versus headgear. The mean molar movement for intraoral distalising appliances was -2.20 mm and -1.04 mm for headgear. There was a statistically significant difference in mean distal molar movement (mean difference (MD) -1.45 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to -0.15) favouring intraoral appliances compared to headgear (four studies, high or unclear risk of bias, 150 participants analysed). However, a statistically significant difference in mean mesial upper incisor movement (MD 1.82 mm; 95% CI 1.39 to 2.24) and overjet (fixed-effect: MD 1.64 mm; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.02; two studies, unclear risk of bias, 70 participants analysed) favoured headgear, i.e. there was less loss of anterior anchorage with headgear. We reported direct comparisons of intraoral appliances narratively due to the variation in interventions (three studies, high or unclear risk of bias, 93 participants randomised). All appliances were reported to provide some degree of distal movement, and loss of anterior anchorage varied with the type of appliance.No included studies reported on the incidence of adverse effects (harm, injury), number of attendances or rate of non-compliance.

Authors' conclusions: It is suggested that intraoral appliances are more effective than headgear in distalising upper first molars. However, this effect is counteracted by loss of anterior anchorage, which was not found to occur with headgear when compared with intraoral distalising appliance in a small number of studies. The number of trials assessing the effects of orthodontic treatment for distilisation is low, and the current evidence is of low or very low quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

One of the authors of this review, Kevin O'Brien, was involved as an author in one of the included studies (Paul 2002). Decisions on study inclusion, data extraction and management for the Paul 2002 study were performed independently of this author. Safa Jambi: no interests to declare. Badri Thiruvenkatachari: no interests to declare. Tanya Walsh: no interests to declare.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Intraoral appliance versus headgear, outcome: 2.1 Movement of upper first molar [mm].
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Intraoral appliance versus headgear, outcome: 2.2 Movement of upper incisor teeth [mm].
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Intraoral appliance versus headgear, outcome: 2.3 Change in overjet [mm].
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Appliance versus untreated control, Outcome 1 Movement of upper first molars.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Appliance versus untreated control, Outcome 2 Movement of upper incisor teeth.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Appliance versus untreated control, Outcome 3 Loss of anchorage (overjet mm).
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Intraoral appliance versus headgear, Outcome 1 Movement of upper first molar.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Intraoral appliance versus headgear, Outcome 2 Movement of upper incisor teeth.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Intraoral appliance versus headgear, Outcome 3 Change in overjet.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Intraoral appliance versus other intraoral appliance, Outcome 1 Movement of upper first molars.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Intraoral appliance versus other intraoral appliance, Outcome 2 Movement of upper incisor teeth.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Intraoral appliance versus other intraoral appliance, Outcome 3 Loss of anchorage (overjet).
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Intraoral appliance versus other intraoral appliance, Outcome 4 Duration of treatment.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

Acar 2010 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Acar AG, Gursoy S, Dincer M. Molar distalization with a pendulum appliance K‐loop combination. European Journal of Orthodontics 2010;32(4):459‐65. - PubMed
    1. 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. The Angle Orthodontist 2008;78(2):317‐23. - PubMed
Altug‐Atac 2008 {published data only}
    1. Altug‐Atac AT, Erdem D, Arat ZM. Three‐dimensional bimetric maxillary distalization arches compared with a modified Begg intraoral distalization system. European Journal of Orthodontics 2008;30(1):73‐9. - PubMed
Armi 2011 {published data only}
    1. Armi P, Cozza P, Baccetti T. Effect of RME and headgear treatment on the eruption of palatally displaced canines: a randomized clinical study. The Angle Orthodontist 2011;81(3):370‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Baccetti 2008 {published data only}
    1. Baccetti T, Leonardo M, Armi P. A randomized clinical study of two interceptive approaches to palatally displaced canines. European Journal of Orthodontics 2008;30:381‐5. - PubMed
Bondemark 2005 {published data only}
    1. Bondemark L, Karlsson I. Extraoral vs intraoral appliance for distal movement of maxillary first molars: a randomized controlled trial. The Angle Orthodontist 2005;75(5):699‐706. - PubMed
De Oliveira 2007 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Oliveira Jr JN, Almeida RR, Almeida MR, Oliveira JN. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and cervical headgear appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007;132:54‐62. - PubMed
Karacay 2006 {published data only}
    1. Karacay S, Akin E, Olmez H, Gurton AU, Sagdic D. Forsus Nitinol flat spring and Jasper Jumper corrections of Class II division 1 malocclusions. The Angle Orthodontist 2006;76(4):666‐72. - PubMed
Papadopoulos 2010 {published data only}
    1. Papadopoulos MA, Melkos AB, Athanasiou AE. Noncompliance maxillary molar distalization with the First Class appliance: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2010;137(5):586.e1‐13. - PubMed
Paul 2002 {published data only}
    1. Paul LD, O'Brien KD, Mandall NA. Upper removable appliance or Jones Jig for distalizing first molars? A randomized clinical trial. Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research 2002;5(4):238‐42. - PubMed
Toy 2011 {published data only}
    1. Toy E, Enacar A. The effects of the pendulum distalising appliance and cervical headgear on the dentofacial structures. Australian Orthodontic Journal 2011;27(1):10‐6. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Abed 2010 {published data only}
    1. Abed Y, Brin I. Early headgear effect on the eruption pattern of maxillary second molars. The Angle Orthodontist 2010;80(4):454‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Angelieri 2008 {published data only}
    1. Angelieri F, Almeida RR, Janson G, Castanha Henriques JF, Pinzan A. Comparison of the effects produced by headgear and pendulum appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment. European Journal of Orthodontics 2008;30(6):572‐9. - PubMed
Cetinsahin 2010 {published data only}
    1. Cetinsahin A, Dinçer M, Arman‐Ozçirpici A, Uçkan S. Effects of the zygoma anchorage system on canine retraction. European Journal of Orthodontics 2010;32(5):505‐13. - PubMed
Erverdi 1997 {published data only}
    1. Erverdi N, Koyuturk O, Kucukkeles N. Nickel‐titanium coil springs and repelling magnets: a comparison of two different intra‐oral molar distalization techniques. British Journal of Orthodontics 1997;24(1):47‐53. - PubMed
Gelgor 2007 {published data only}
    1. Gelgor IE, Karaman AI, Buyukyilmaz T. Comparison of 2 distalization systems supported by intraosseous screws. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007;131(2):161.e1‐8. - PubMed
Kaya 2009 {published data only}
    1. Kaya B, Arman A, Uckan S, Yazici AC. Comparison of the zygoma anchorage system with cervical headgear in buccal segment distalization. European Journal of Orthodontics 2009;31(4):417‐24. - PubMed
Kinzinger 2003 {published data only}
    1. Kinzinger G, Fritz U, Diedrich P. Combined therapy with pendulum and lingual arch appliances in the early mixed dentition. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 2003;64(3):201‐13. - PubMed
Kinzinger 2004 {published data only}
    1. Kinzinger GS, 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. - PubMed
Kinzinger 2005 {published data only}
    1. Kinzinger GS, Gross U, Fritz UB, Diedrich PR. Anchorage quality of deciduous molars versus premolars for molar distalization with a pendulum appliance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2005;127(3):314‐23. - PubMed
Kinzinger 2006 {published data only}
    1. Kinzinger GS, Wehrbein H, Gross U, Diedrich PR. Molar distalization with pendulum appliances in the mixed dentition: effects on the position of unerupted canines and premolars. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2006;129(3):407‐17. - PubMed
Kinzinger 2010 {published data only}
    1. Kinzinger G, Pantel C, Ludwig B, Gulden N, Glasl B, Lisson J. Effects of conventional anchorage on premolar root development during treatment with a pendulum appliance. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 2010;71(4):281‐9. - PubMed
Kucukkeles 2007 {published data only}
    1. Kucukkeles N, Ilhan I, Orgun IA. Treatment efficiency in skeletal Class II patients treated with the jasper jumper. The Angle Orthodontist 2007;77(3):449‐56. - PubMed
Liu 2009 {published data only}
    1. Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini‐screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2009;36(9):687‐95. - PubMed
Mossaz 2007 {published data only}
    1. 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):616‐23. - PubMed
Oncag 2007 {published data only}
    1. Oncag G, Seckin O, Dincer B, Arikan F. Osseointegrated implants with pendulum springs for maxillary molar distalization: a cephalometric study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007;131(1):16‐26. - PubMed
Sari 2003 {published data only}
    1. Sari Z, Goyenc Y, Doruk C, Usumez S. Comparative evaluation of a new removable Jasper Jumper functional appliance vs an activator‐headgear combination. The Angle Orthodontist 2003;73(3):286‐93. - PubMed
Schutze 2007 {published data only}
    1. Schutze SF, Gedrange T, Zellmann MR, Harzer W. Effects of unilateral molar distalization with a modified pendulum appliance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007;131(5):600‐8. - PubMed
Silvola 2009 {published data only}
    1. Silvola AS, Arvonen P, Julku J, Lahdesmaki R, Kantomaa T, Pirttiniemi P. Early headgear effects on the eruption pattern of the maxillary canines. The Angle Orthodontist 2009;79(3):540‐5. - PubMed
Taner 2003 {published data only}
    1. Taner TU, Yukay F, Pehlivanoglu M, Cakirer B. A comparative analysis of maxillary tooth movement produced by cervical headgear and pend‐x appliance. The Angle Orthodontist 2003;73(6):686‐91. - PubMed
Ucem 1998 {published data only}
    1. Ucem TT, Yuksel S. Effects of different vectors of forces applied by combined headgear. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1998;113(3):316‐23. - PubMed
Uzel 2007 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Uzel A, Uzel I, Toroglu MS. Two different applications of Class II elastics with nonextraction segmental techniques. The Angle Orthodontist 2007;77(4):694‐700. - PubMed

Additional references

Antonarakis 2008
    1. Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. Maxillary molar distalization with noncompliance intramaxillary appliances in Class II malocclusion. A systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist 2008;78(6):1133‐40. - PubMed
Atherton 2002
    1. Atherton GJ, Glenny AM, O'Brien K. Development and use of a taxonomy to carry out a systematic review of the literature on methods described to effect distal movement of molars. Journal of Orthodontics 2002;29(3):211‐6. - PubMed
Blueher 1959
    1. Blueher WA. Cephalometric analysis of treatment with cervical anchorage. The Angle Orthodontist 1959;29(1):45‐53.
Bondemark 1994
    1. Bondemark L. Orthodontic magnets. A study of force and field pattern, biocompatibility and clinical effects. Swedish Dental Journal Supplement 1994;99:1‐148. - PubMed
Brandao 2006
    1. Brandao M, Pinho HS, Urias D. Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: a pilot study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2006;129(2):239‐44. - PubMed
Carano 1996
    1. Carano A, Testa M. The distal jet for upper molar distalization. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1996;30(7):374‐80. - PubMed
Cole 2002
    1. Cole WA. Accuracy of patient reporting as an indication of headgear compliance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2002;121(4):419‐23. - PubMed
CONSORT 2010
    1. The CONSORT Statement. http://www.consort‐statement.org/consort‐statement/ 2010.
Cureton 1993
    1. Cureton SL, Regennitter FJ, Yancey JM. Clinical versus quantitative assessment of headgear compliance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1993;104(3):277‐84. - PubMed
Feldmann 2006
    1. Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review. The Angle Orthodontist 2006;76(3):493‐501. - PubMed
Fortini 1999
    1. Fortini A, Lupoli M, Parri M. The First Class Appliance for rapid molar distalization. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1999;33(6):322‐8. - PubMed
Gianelly 1991
    1. Gianelly AA, Bednar J, Dietz VS. Japanese NiTi coils used to move molars distally. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1991;99(6):564‐6. - PubMed
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Higgins 2011d
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hilgers 1992
    1. Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for Class II non‐compliance therapy. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1992;26(11):706‐14. - PubMed
Jasper 1995
    1. Jasper JJ, McNamara JA Jr. The correction of interarch malocclusions using a fixed force module. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1995;108(6):641‐50. - PubMed
Jones 1992
    1. Jones RD, White JM. Rapid Class II molar correction with an open‐coil jig. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1992;26(10):661‐4. - PubMed
King 1957
    1. King EW. Cervical anchorage in class II division I treatment; a cephalometric appraisal. The Angle Orthodontist 1957;27(2):98‐104.
Kinzinger 2008
    1. Kinzinger GS, Eren M, Diedrich PR. Treatment effects of intraoral appliances with conventional anchorage designs for non‐compliance maxillary molar distalization: a literature review. European Journal of Orthodontics 2008;30(6):558‐71. - PubMed
Klein 1957
    1. Klein PL. An evaluation of cervical traction on the maxilla and the upper first permanent molar. The Angle Orthodontist 1957;27(1):61‐8.
Moore 1959a
    1. Moore AW, Alton W. Orthodontic treatment factors in class II malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics 1959;45(5):323‐52.
Moore 1959b
    1. Moore AW. Observations on facial growth and its clinical significance. American Journal of Orthodontics 1959;45(6):399‐423.
Muse 1993
    1. Muse DS, Fillman MJ, Emmerson WJ, Mitchell RD. Molar and incisor changes with Wilson rapid molar distalization. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1993;104(6):556‐65. - PubMed
Newcombe 1958
    1. Newcombe MR. Some observations on extraoral treatment. The Angle Orthodontist 1958;28(3):131‐48.
Pavlick 1998
    1. Pavlick CT Jr. Cervical headgear usage and the bioprogressive orthodontic philosophy. Seminars in Orthodontics 1998;4(4):219‐30. - PubMed
Samuels1996
    1. Samuels RH. A review of orthodontic face‐bow injuries and safety equipment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1996;110(3):269‐72. - PubMed
Silverstein 1954
    1. Silverstein A. Changes in the bony facial profile coincident with treatment of class II division I malocclusion. The Angle Orthodontist 1954;24(4):214‐37.
SPIRIT 2013
    1. The SPIRIT Statement. http://www.spirit‐statement.org/spirit‐statement/ 2013.

LinkOut - more resources