Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences

CASE REPORT
Year
: 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1750--1754

Nonextraction correction of Class II malocclusion by pendulum appliance


Pallavi Jeetesh Jadhav1, Shivprasad Vasant Sonawane2, Nikhil Mahajan3, Bhushan Gorakh Chavan4, Priyanka R Mahale5, Rakesh Ashok Pawar4,  
1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to Be) Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, SMBT Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Nashik, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
4 General Dentist, JMF's ACPM Dental College and Hospital, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
5 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Smile Designers Dental Clinic and Orthodontic Care, Nashik, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Shivprasad Vasant Sonawane
Om Moungiri Bungalow, Hare Krishna Colony, Behind KKW Engg College, Panchavati, Nashik - 422 003, Maharashtra
India

Abstract

A 13-year-old female patient, presented with the chief complaint of forwardly placed upper front teeth. On examination and analysis of relevant records, she was diagnosed as an Angle's Class II malocclusion on a skeletal Class I base. It was decided to treat the patient with a nonextraction treatment approach with the help of maxillary molar distalization followed by fixed mechanotherapy.



How to cite this article:
Jadhav PJ, Sonawane SV, Mahajan N, Chavan BG, Mahale PR, Pawar RA. Nonextraction correction of Class II malocclusion by pendulum appliance.J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13:1750-1754


How to cite this URL:
Jadhav PJ, Sonawane SV, Mahajan N, Chavan BG, Mahale PR, Pawar RA. Nonextraction correction of Class II malocclusion by pendulum appliance. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Oct 2 ];13:1750-1754
Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/6/1750/329995


Full Text



 Introduction



Since the early 1980s various intra arch Molar Distalizing systems have been developed that aimed to minimize the reliance on the patient compliance.[1] Pendulum appliance being important part of this intraarch system is simple and efficient. It was introduced by HILGERS in 1992.[2] Since then, many variations have emerged and their clinical application has had great success.[3]

The distalization mechanism consists of bilateral helical spring made out of titanium molybdenum alloy. Unlike Jones jig, it does not have any coil springs; instead, it has 0.032 inches TMA springs which deliver a continuous force against the maxillary first molar producing 200 to 250 gms of force in a swimming arc movement from the midline, hence the name pendulum.[4]

 Case Report



Section I: Pretreatment assessment

History and clinical examination

A 13 year old female patient, presented with the chief complaint of forwardly placed upper front teeth.

Extraoral examination [Figure 1] revealed a Europrosopic facial form with convex profile, and low mandibular plane angle. The nasolabial angle was acute, and mentolabial sulcus was deep and potentially incompetent lips. The intraoral examination revealed [Figure 2] that patient exhibited Angle's Class II molar relationship and a Class II Division 1 incisor relationship with 10mm of overjet and 6mm overbite.{Figure 1}{Figure 2}

General radiographic examination

Panoramic radiographic examination [Figure 3], revealed the presence of all the permanent teeth and developing tooth germs of all the third molars except the mandibular left third molar.Cephalometric evaluation[5] [Figure 4] and [Table 1] revealed skeletal Class I jaw bases, horizontal growth pattern, decreased lower anterior facial height, increased overjet and overbite, convex profile, proclination of the maxillary incisors, average lower incisors and acute nasolabial angle.{Figure 3}{Figure 4}{Table 1}

Model analysis

Model analysis revealed 8 mm spacing in maxillary arch and 4.2 mm spacing in mandibular arch. Bolton analysis showed total maxillary tooth material excess and an anterior mandibular excess.

Diagnosis

The 13-year old growing female patient with Angle's Class II malocclusion on a skeletal Class I base with horizontal growth pattern, spacing in maxillary arch, proclination of maxillary incisors, average mandibular incisors, increased overjet and overbite, deep curve of Spee, with mandibular midline shifted to the right, convex profile, and acute nasolabial angle with decreased lower anterior facial height.

Treatment objectives

To establish bilateral Class I buccal segment relationship, ideal overjet and overbite.To correct dental midlines, upper incisor Proclination, convex profile and normalize the acute nasolabial angle and achieve soft tissue balance and harmony.

Treatment plan

Appliance: Hilgers pendulum appliance followed by fixed mechanotherapy.

Special anchorage requirement: pendulum appliance and transpalatal arch.

Proposed retention strategy: Fixed lingual bonded retainers for the lower anteriors and the upper incisors and upper Hawley's retainer.

Section II: Treatment

After the fabrication of the appliance, it was cemented with the desired activation [Figure 5]. Molar distalization phase continued for 7 months. During the end stages of molar distalization, the anchorage taken from the second premolars was relieved to facilitate their distal movement [Figure 6]. After the pendulum appliance was removed, transpalatal arch was given on the same day.[3] Fixed mechanotherapy was started with MBT prescription 0.018′′ slot. After the initial alignment of maxillary teeth, 0.016′′ special plus Australian archwire was given, with E-chains to retract the maxillary premolars followed by maxillary canines [Figure 7]. Incisor retraction was done using closing loop fabricated in 0.016''* 0.022'' SS wire. [Figure 8]. In the mandibular arch, utility arch was given fabricated using 0.016'' * 0.016'' SS wire for incisor intrusion [Figure 9]. Space closure in both the arches was done. Upper and lower 0.017′′×0.025′′ NiTi archwires were given followed by 0.017′′×0.025′′ SS arch wires for finishing [Figure 10]. Subsequently 0.016′′ NiTi archwires were given along with elastics for the appropriate occlusal settling. Active treatment lasted for 1 years and 9 months after which fixed appliance was removed.{Figure 5}{Figure 6}{Figure 7}{Figure 8}{Figure 9}{Figure 10}

Interpretation of posttreatment cephalometric values

Posttreatment panoramic radiograph [Figure 13] showed root parallelism. Lateral cephalogram [Figure 14] showed both normal overjet and overbite. Cephalometric Superimposition summarizes the outcome of the treatment [Figure 15]. Soft tissue profile improved drastically due to the correction of the maxillary incisor proclination and increase in lower anterior facial height. Occlusal Indices [Table 2] showed satisfactory results.{Figure 11}{Figure 12}{Figure 13}{Figure 14}{Figure 15}{Table 2}

Critical appraisal

The posttreatment results achieved were highly satisfactory with good posterior occlusion [Figure 11] and excellent facial soft tissue balance and harmony [Figure 12]. The patient and parents were highly satisfied with the treatment result.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Byloff FK, Darendeliler MA. Distal molar movement using the pendulum appliance. Part 1: Clinical and radiological evaluation. Angle Orthod 1997;67:249-60.
2Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for class II non-compliance therapy. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:706-14.
3Scuzzo G, Pisani F, Takemoto K. Maxillary molar distalization with a modified pendulum appliance. J Clin Orthod 1999;33:645-50.
4Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Evaluation of an intraoral maxillary molar distalization technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:639-46.
5Kinzinger GS, Fritz UB, Sander FG, Diedrich PR. Efficiency of a pendulum appliance for molar distalization related to second and third molar eruption stage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:8-23.