الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 32 |  |  |
| | | from | 32 | | |
Abstract
The treatment of Class II malocclusions has always been a subject of great interest for orthodontists. The use of so-called “distalization” mechanics to correct Class II malocclusions is a common treatment modality87.
Many devices have been developed and used to distalize the maxillary molars and show positive clinical results (e.g. Pendulum, Keles slider, Frog appliance). Because these appliances usually derive their anchorage from maxillary premolars which inturn leads to mesialization of premolars and protrusion of incisors accompanying maxillary molar distalization. In order to overcome the problem of anchorage loss TADs supported appliances could be incorporated in the various distalization designs such as MSF.
Thus the aim of current study was to investigate SF and MSF and their effects on dentofacial and soft tissue structure associated with distalization of maxillary first molars in the treatment of dental class II cases.
The sample consisted of 30 Egyptian subjects with class II molar relationship. The subjects were equally and randomly divided into two groups of 15 subjects in each group. Their ages ranged from 11-16 years at the beginning of the treatment.
CBCT were obtained pretreatment (T1) and post-distalization (T2). Vertical, horizontal and transverse changes were recorded to investigate the skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes associated with molar distalization by SF and MSF. The Collected data was tabulated and statistically analyzed.
Conclusions:
• Maxillary first molars were distalized into a super class I molar relationship with distal tipping in both groups.
• Maxillary first molars revealed rotation during distalization in both groups.
• The maxillary intermolar width increased in both groups.
• There was loss of anchorage in the standard Frog distalizer group expressed by the mesial migration of the maxillary first premolars and central incisors.
• There was spontaneous distalization (driftodontic) of the second and first premolar in the miniscrews-supported distalizer group.
• There was retrusion of upper incisor in the miniscrews-supported distalizer group.
• The lower facial height and the total facial height were increased in both groups.
• The nasolabial angle decreased in the standard Frog distalizer group, while it was increased in the miniscrews-supported distalizer group.
• The maxillary basal width was decreased in standard Frog distalizer group more than miniscrews-supported distalizer group.
• There was decreasing in the anteroposterior position of the mandible in both groups.
• The miniscrews-supported distalizer is an effective alternative for intraoral molar distalizers without anchorage loss.