ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparative distalization effects of Jones jig

and pendulum appliances
Mayara Paim Patel,a Guilherme Janson,b José Fernando Castanha Henriques,c
Renato Rodrigues de Almeida,d Marcos Roberto de Freitas,c Arnaldo Pinzan,d and
Karina Maria Salvatore de Freitasa
Bauru, Brazil

Introduction: In this study, we compared the dentoalveolar changes of Class II patients treated with Jones
jig and pendulum appliances. Methods: The experimental group comprised 40 Class II malocclusion
subjects, divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 20 patients (11 boys, 9 girls) at a mean pretreatment
age of 13.17 years, treated with the Jones jig appliance for 0.91 years; group 2 comprised 20 patients (8
boys, 12 grls) at a mean pretreatment age of 13.98 years, treated with the pendulum appliance for 1.18 years.
Only active treatment time of molar distalization was evaluated in the predistalization and postdistalization
lateral cephalograms. Molar, second premolar, and incisor angular and linear variables were obtained. The
intergroup treatment changes in these variables were compared with independent t tests. Results: The
maxillary second premolars showed greater mesial tipping and extrusion in the Jones jig group, indicating
more anchorage loss during molar distalization with this appliance. The amounts and the monthly rates of
molar distalization were similar in both groups. Conclusions: The Jones jig group showed greater mesial
tipping and extrusion of the maxillary second premolars. The mean amounts and the monthly rates of first
molar distalization were similar in both groups. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:336-42)

ponents of force can be repelling magnets3,4,18,19; coil

N
onextraction treatment for Class II malocclu-
sion often requires distal movement of the springs on a continuous archwire,6,20 a segmented
maxillary molars. Generally, correction of this archwire (distal jet and Jones jig),14,17,21,22 or a remov-
malocclusion involves application of an external force able appliance23; beta titanium alloy helicoidal springs
via headgear to the maxillary molars. However, the use in a pendulum appliance8,15,24; superelastic wires20,25;
of headgear requires patient compliance to be an or K-loop.26
effective therapy for Class II correction.1 The Jones jig and the pendulum are noncompliance
The difficulties of headgear and the dependence on appliances for molar distalization. Some authors have
patient cooperation have stimulated many researchers investigated the dentoalveolar and skeletal distaliza-
to develop new intraoral devices and techniques for tion changes of these appliances1,9,10,14-17,27 and
maxillary molar distal movement. Magnets have been found that the pendulum produced greater molar
used since 1978 for molar distalization,2-5 followed by
distalization15,27 than the Jones jig,17,22 and that
several other appliances with the same purpose, such as
molar tipping from the pendulum can be substan-
superelastic nickel-titanium coil springs,5-7 the pendu-
tially reduced when molar uprighting bends are
lum,8-13 and the Jones jig.1,14-17
incorporated in it.9 However, the amounts of anchor-
Most fixed appliances used to move molars distally
require dental and palatal anchorage. The active com- age loss of the premolars were similar for both
appliances.1,9,15-17,27 Most previous studies evaluat-
From the Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School University of São
ing treatment changes with Jones jig or pendulum
Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil.
a
Graduate student. appliances investigated mainly the amount and the
b

c
Professor and head. rate of molar distalization, and only mentioned some
Professor.
d
Associate Professor.
side effects such as tipping and anchorage
This study was supported by CAPES (Brazilian Federal Education Agency). loss.1,8,12,13,15,17,28 No previous study directly com-
Reprint requests to: Mayara Paim Patel, Department of Orthodontics, Bauru pared treatment changes between Jones jig and
Dental School, University of São Paulo, Alameda Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla
9-75, Bauru, SP, 17012-901, Brazil; e-mail, [email protected]. pendulum appliances. Therefore, we aimed to com-
Submitted, August 2006; revised and accepted, January 2007. pare the dentoalveolar effects of treatment with
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright © 2009 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
Jones jig and pendulum appliances for molar distal-
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.035 ization in Class II malocclusion patients.
336
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Patel et al 337
Volume 135, Number 3

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The sample comprised 40 subjects (19 boys, 21
girls) who were prospectively treated at the Department
of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of
São Paulo, Brazil. The criteria of sample selection were
Class II malocclusion, all permanent teeth up to the first
molars erupted at pretreatment, no severe mandibular
crowding, and no previous orthodontic treatment. Lat-
eral cephalograms of each patient were obtained before
and after molar distalization. The sample was divided
into 2 groups.
Group 1 comprised 20 subjects (11 boys, 9 girls) at
a mean initial age of 13.17 years (SD, 1.52; range,
10.83-16.24 years), treated with the Jones jig (Fig 1).
Four patients had a full-cusp Class II molar relation- Fig 1. Jones jig appliance and Nance button used as
ship; 8 had a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship; anchorage.
1 had a three quarters Class II molar relationship, and 7
had a one quarter-cusp Class II molar relationship. The
original stainless steel coil spring was changed to a
Nitinol coil spring (G&H Wire Co, Greenwood, Ind) to
exert continuous force. The coil spring was activated 5
mm every 4 weeks to deliver 100 g of force. A Nance
button was also used as anchorage.14 The mean molar
distalization time was 0.91 years (SD, 0.35; range,
0.50-1.95 years).
Group 2 comprised 20 subjects (8 boys, 12 girls) at
a mean initial age of 13.98 years (SD, 1.72; range,
11.33-17.26 years), treated with the pendulum (Fig 2).
Six patients had a full-cusp Class II molar relationship;
8 had a one half-cusp Class II molar relationship; 5 had
a three quarters Class II molar relationship, and 1 had a
one quarter-cusp Class II molar relationship. All sub-
jects in this group had the second molars erupted. The Fig 2. Pendulum appliance.
pendulum springs were activated parallel to the palatal
midline, with a mean force of about 250 g, following sion 7.02, Dentofacial Planner, Toronto, Ontario, Can-
the activation scheme suggested by Hilgers.8 The mean ada). This software corrected the magnification factor
molar distalization time was 1.18 years (SD, 0.28; of the radiographic images that were between 6% and
range, 0.68-1.79 years). 9.8%. The cephalometric measurements of the maxil-
In both groups, the appliances were used until the lary incisors, premolars, and first molars are described
maxillary first molars were distalized to a Class I in Table I and Figure 3.
relationship. Thereafter, full fixed appliances were The tooth centroid was the point chosen to
placed to retract the maxillary anterior segment, align prevent sagittal and vertical changes from being
the teeth, and detail the occlusion. This treatment phase exacerbated or camouflaged by crown tipping.10 The
was not evaluated in this study. centroid is the midpoint on a horizontal line from the
Pretreatment and postdistalization cephalometric greatest mesial and distal convexity of the 2-dimen-
radiographs were taken of each patient. The cephalo- sional outline of the molars and the premolars.15
metric tracings and landmark identifications were made After the centroid was determined for each tooth, the
on acetate paper by 1 investigator (M.P.P.) and then average of the right and left centroids was used for
digitized (AccuGrid XNT, model A30TL.F, Numonics, the measurements.
Montgomeryville, Pa). Bilateral structures of interest A month after the first measurements, 40 randomly
were averaged.29 These data were stored on a computer selected cephalograms (20 pretreatment, 20 postdistal-
and analyzed with Dentofacial Planner software (ver- ization) were retraced and remeasured by the same
338 Patel et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
March 2009

Table I. Cephalometric measurements used for maxil-

lary incisors, premolars, and first molars
SN.Mx1 Angle formed by the intersection of the long axis
of the maxillary central incisor and the SN line
SN.Mx5 Angle formed by the intersection of the long axis
of the maxillary second premolar and the SN
line
SN.Mx6 Angle formed by the intersection of the long axis
of the maxillary first molar and the SN line.
The first molar long axis was determined by a
line passing through the central point between
the 2 root apices and the centroid point
PTV-Mx1 Linear distance from the tip of the maxillary
central incisor perpendicular to the pterygoid
vertical plane (PTV)
PTV-Mx5 Linear distance from the centroid of the maxillary
second premolar perpendicular to the PTV
PTV-Mx6 Linear distance from the centroid of the maxillary
first molar perpendicular to the PTV
PP-Mx1 Linear distance from the tip of the maxillary
central incisor perpendicular to the palatal
plane (PP)
PP-Mx5 Linear distance from the centroid of the maxillary
second premolar perpendicular to the PP
PP-Mx6 Linear distance from the centroid of the maxillary
first molar perpendicular to the PP Fig 3. 1, SN.Mx1; 2, SN.Mx5; 3, SN.Mx6; 4, PTV-Mx1;
5, PTV-Mx5; 6, PTV-Mx6; 7, PP-Mx1; 8, PP-Mx5; 9,
PP-Mx6.

examiner (M.P.P.). The casual error was calculated RESULTS

according to Dahlberg’s formula30 (Se2 ⫽ ⌺d2/2n),
where Se2 is the error variance and d is the difference None of the studied variables showed a systematic
between the 2 determinations of the same variable. The error, and the casual errors varied from 0.44 mm
systematic error was calculated with dependent t tests at (PP-Mx1) to 3.75° (SN.Mx6) (Table II).
The groups were compatible for initial age, Class II
P ⬍0.05.31-33
molar relationship severity, and number of patients
with erupted maxillary second molars. Only treatment
Statistical analyses time and postdistalization age were significantly differ-
ent between the groups (Tables III-V).
Class II molar relationship severity and the number
The pretreatment skeletal characteristics were sim-
of patients with erupted maxillary second molars be-
ilar in the groups (Table VI). The Jones jig group had
tween the groups were compared with chi-square and
more protruded and labially tipped maxillary incisors
Fisher exact tests, respectively. Application of t tests than did the pendulum group at pretreatment (Table
requires normal distributions and equality of variances, VI). The maxillary second premolars showed greater
which were verified with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and mesial tipping and extrusion in the Jones jig group
with the F ratio, Levene, and Brown-Forsythe tests, (Table VII). The monthly rates of distal molar move-
respectively. The results were not significant for all ment were similar in both groups (Table VII).
variables. Therefore, intergroup comparisons of pre-
treatment age, treatment time, pretreatment variables, DISCUSSION
and treatment changes were performed with t tests. There was great compatibility between the groups
Because of the difference in treatment times of the regarding Class II malocclusion severity, the presence
groups, a monthly rate of distal movement was calcu- of the maxillary second molars, and pretreatment age.
lated and compared between the groups with the t test. Distribution of the sexes in the groups was not statis-
All statistical analyses were done with Statistica soft- tically evaluated because of the short treatment time.15
ware (Statistica for Windows, version 6.0, Statsoft, Nevertheless, the pendulum group had a significantly
Tulsa, Okla), and the results were considered signifi- greater postdistalization age and longer treatment time
cant at P ⬍0.05. (Tables III-V). It is important to have a similar Class II
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Patel et al 339
Volume 135, Number 3

Table II. Casual and systematic errors between the first and second measurements
Measurement 1 Measurement 2

Variable Mean SD Mean SD n Dahlberg P

Skeletal variables
SNA (°) 82.80 3.94 83.03 3.98 40 1.04 0.206
SNB (°) 79.76 2.58 79.62 2.29 40 0.98 0.399
ANB (°) 4.06 1.85 3.87 1.59 40 0.45 0.161
NAP (°) 5.25 3.98 5.32 4.50 40 0.57 0.689
FMA (°) 26.79 5.78 26.89 5.08 40 0.91 0.736
SN.GoGn (°) 32.24 5.39 31.69 5.11 40 1.42 0.077
Dental variables
SN.Mx1 (°) 106.88 6.60 107.04 6.51 40 2.04 0.815
PTV-Mx1 (mm) 59.15 3.81 58.82 3.66 40 0.65 0.178
PP-Mx1 (mm) 28.77 2.22 28.62 2.34 40 0.44 0.272
SN.Mx5 (°) 79.26 6.70 79.53 7.03 40 2.11 0.723
PTV-Mx5 (mm) 33.67 2.98 33.30 2.92 40 0.87 0.143
PP-Mx5 (mm) 21.14 2.13 21.32 2.22 40 0.59 0.334
SN.Mx6 (°) 70.55 6.60 70.54 7.59 40 3.75 0.989
PTV-Mx6 (mm) 21.81 3.42 21.68 3.07 40 0.71 0.721
PP-Mx6 (mm) 18.19 2.27 17.92 2.21 40 0.52 0.091

Table III. Comparison of the severity of Class II molar relationship between the groups (chi-square test)
Molar relationship

1/4 1/2 3/4 Full-cusp

Group Class II Class II Class II Class II Total

Jones jig 7 8 1 4 20
Pendulum 1 8 5 6 20
Total 8 16 6 10 40

⌾2 ⫽ 7.56 Df ⫽ 3 P ⫽ 0.055

Table IV. Comparison of patients with erupted maxil- Table V. Intergroup comparison of pretreatment and
lary second molars between the groups (chi-square and postdistalization ages, and treatment time (t tests)
Fisher exact tests) Jones jig Pendulum
Second molars n ⫽ 20 n ⫽ 20

Group Erupted Unerupted Total Variable (y) Mean SD Mean SD P

Jones jig 17 3 20 Pretreatment age 13.17 1.52 13.98 1.72 0.121

Pendulum 20 0 20 Postdistalization age 14.08 1.60 15.16 1.73 0.045*
Total 37 3 40 Treatment time 0.906 0.35 1.183 0.28 0.008*

*Statistically significant at P ⬍0.05.

⌾2 ⫽ 3.24 Df ⫽ 1 P ⫽ 0.231

this could influence the results of the distal movement

of the maxillary first molars.12,13,19
malocclusion severity in the groups because the amount The significantly longer treatment time in the pen-
of distalization can influence the degree of tipping of dulum group confirms previous reports and should be
the first molars and the anchorage teeth. However, most considered in the analysis of the results.27,34,35 Proba-
previous studies did not quantify the severity of Class II bly, this was because the subjects in the pendulum
malocclusion; this can prevent direct comparison of group had all second molars erupted and a slightly
their results with others.1,9,10,12,13,16,17,27 The groups greater malocclusion severity at pretreatment. The
were also compatible for the maxillary second molars longer treatment time of both groups in relation to
during distalization with the intraoral appliances, since other reports could be because treatment time was
340 Patel et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
March 2009

Table VI. Results of intergroup comparison at pretreat- Table VII. Results of intergroup comparison of the
ment (t tests) treatment changes and the monthly rate of distal move-
Jones jig Pendulum
ment (t tests)
n ⫽ 20 n ⫽ 20 Jones jig Pendulum
n ⫽ 20 n ⫽ 20
Variable Mean SD Mean SD P
Variable Mean SD Mean SD P
Skeletal variables
SNA (°) 82.64 3.28 82.15 3.98 0.677 Skeletal variables
SNB (°) 79.48 3.32 78.23 3.02 0.220 SNA (°) 0.37 1.84 0.17 1.46 0.705
ANB (°) 3.14 1.73 3.92 2.28 0.228 SNB (°) 0.17 1.63 ⫺0.32 1.07 0.273
NAP (°) 5.13 4.18 5.10 5.50 0.985 ANB (°) 0.24 0.88 0.50 1.31 0.458
FMA (°) 25.60 5.02 25.64 5.55 0.981 NAP (°) 0.08 1.69 0.90 2.62 0.244
SN.GoGn (°) 31.39 4.40 30.54 5.73 0.602 FMA (°) 0.99 1.62 0.70 1.89 0.612
Dental variables SN.GoGn (°) 0.38 1.96 0.63 0.98 0.620
SN.Mx1 (°) 107.09 6.00 102.34 7.34 0.031* Dental variables
PTV-Mx1 (mm) 60.72 4.19 57.73 2.83 0.012* SN.Mx1 (°) 2.29 5.03 3.11 3.63 0.558
PP-Mx1 (mm) 28.25 2.31 28.38 2.67 0.865 PTV-Mx1 (mm) 1.11 1.86 1.47 1.63 0.513
SN.Mx5 (°) 78.45 6.24 77.49 4.73 0.587 PP-Mx1 (mm) 0.64 1.96 0.48 1.06 0.757
PTV-Mx5 (mm) 33.56 3.33 32.77 2.43 0.397 SN.Mx5 (°) 9.29 7.06 2.37 5.95 0.002*
PP-Mx5 (mm) 20.40 2.07 20.40 2.36 0.994 PTV-Mx5 (mm) 2.55 2.45 2.23 1.49 0.620
SN.Mx6 (°) 75.85 4.58 74.82 4.82 0.495 PP-Mx5 (mm) 1.73 1.32 0.85 1.04 0.024*
PTV-Mx6 (mm) 24.66 3.11 23.64 2.27 0.244 SN.Mx6 (°) ⫺9.54 4.21 ⫺10.00 4.04 0.721
PP-Mx6 (mm) 18.21 2.38 18.56 2.44 0.649 PTV-Mx6 (mm) ⫺3.12 1.56 ⫺3.51 1.73 0.464
PP-Mx6 (mm) ⫺0.41 1.56 ⫺0.22 1.30 0.679
*Statistically significant at P ⬍0.05.
Monthly rate of
distal molar
calculated between the dates of the cephalometric movement
radiographs.1,9,10,12,13,16,22,27,28,34 To overcome this Monthly distalization 0.338 0.22 0.263 0.16 0.255
problem, the monthly distalization rate was calcu- *Statistically significant at P ⬍0.05.
lated and compared between the groups, as will be
discussed.
The groups had similar initial skeletal characteris- that the maxillary central incisor had 2.21° of procli-
tics and a slight skeletal component to the Class II nation in relation to SN during Jones jig activation.
malocclusion (ANB, Table VI). Therefore, the differ- Kinzinger et al34 found protrusion of the maxillary
ences in treatment changes could not be attributed to central incisor of 1.33 mm, with 0.61 mm of extrusion
different skeletal characteristics. and 3.28° of labial tipping in patients treated with the
At pretreatment in the investigated variables, the pendulum appliance. Bussick and McNamara27 evalu-
Jones jig group had only greater labial inclination and ated molar distalization with the pendulum appliance
protrusion of the maxillary incisors than the pendulum and found 3.7° and 1.5 mm, respectively, of labial
group (Table VI). tipping and protrusion of the maxillary incisors in a
Treatment changes of the skeletal variables were group treated with the pendulum appliance with per-
similar in the Jones jig and the pendulum groups, manent teeth as anchorage. In our study, the results
showing that both appliances act similarly on these were not different. The maxillary incisors had similar
structures (Table VII). There was a slight opening of labial tipping, protrusion, and slight extrusion in both
the mandibular plane angles in both groups. Opening of groups (Table VII). Therefore, the initially greater
the mandibular plane angle is common in Class II protrusion and labial tipping of the maxillary incisors
mechanics,36 and it also occurred with the Jones jig and with the Jones jig did not contribute to different
the pendulum appliances, as has also been previously treatment changes.
shown.13,37 Molar distalization had a significantly different
The maxillary incisors showed similar treatment effect on the second premolars in the groups. There was
changes in both groups (Table VII). Most studies that greater mesial tipping and extrusion of the second
cephalometrically evaluated the behavior of the maxil- premolars in the Jones jig group than in the pendulum
lary incisors after molar distalization demonstrated group, in spite of the statistically shorter treatment time
protrusion and labial tipping of these teeth, confirming in the former (Table VII). Even considering the large
the anchorage loss caused by the reciprocal force of casual error for second premolar tipping, the differ-
distalization.1,13,15-17,22,27,28,34,35 Brickman et al1 found ences between the groups were great and therefore can
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Patel et al 341
Volume 135, Number 3

be regarded as clinically significant. However, the much anchorage loss, as also previously and exten-
amounts of mesial movement of the maxillary second sively reported.1,9,10,15-17,22
premolars were similar in both groups (PTV-Mx5, The distalization effects on the first maxillary mo-
Table VII). Mesial movement, mesial tipping, and lars were similar in the 2 groups and similar to most
extrusion of the second premolars have already been studies in the literature1,10,15,17,34 (PTV-Mx6, Table
shown with these appliances, but not a significant VII). Brickman et al1 evaluated molar distalization with
difference for tipping and extrusion between the Jones jig appliance for 6.35 months and showed
them.1,13,15-17,22,27,28,34 These differences could be at- 2.51 mm of distal movement of the maxillary first
tributed to the size of the acrylic extension of the Nance molar. Ghosh and Nanda15 evaluated patients treated
button, which was larger in the pendulum appliance. with the pendulum appliance for 6.2 months and found
The more extended the anchorage device in the palate, 3.37 mm of distal molar movement.
the greater the anchorage reinforcement.15 Other vari- However, our distalization results are not similar to
ables that influence anchorage loss are the selection and some previous investigations; this could be due to differ-
the number of teeth used as anchorage. Premolars ences in sample characteristics or methodology.22,27,28
provide better anchorage support than deciduous mo- Bussick and McNamara27 found mean molar distaliza-
lars, and the anchorage loss will be smaller if the Nance tion of 5.7 mm for the pendulum appliance, but 57 of
button is supported in the first and second premolars 101 patients had no erupted permanent maxillary sec-
rather than in only 1 of them.28,34 The inclusion of only ond molars. In our study, all subjects in the pendulum
2 premolars in the anchorage unit with the Jones jig vs group had these teeth erupted; this could justify the
4 premolars in the pendulum appliance might have smaller distalization amount. Gulati et al22 found a
contributed to the greater mesial tipping and extrusion mean molar distalization of 2.78 mm in only 3 months
of the maxillary second premolars in the Jones jig for the Jones jig with a force of 150 g. In our study,
group. The second premolars in the pendulum appli- molar distalization in the Jones jig group was greater in
ance group tended to have more bodily movement. spite of the lighter force used (100 g). However,
Nevertheless, the greater anchorage loss in the second treatment time was considerably longer.
premolar was not enough to produce significantly The monthly rate of maxillary molar distalization
greater incisor changes in this group, as previously was similar in both groups (Table VII). Therefore, it
discussed. seems that both appliances have a similar distalizing
The mean molar distalization (PTV-Mx6) was close effect to correct a Class II malocclusion.
to the anchorage loss of the premolars and the incisors Because the pendulum appliance produced less
(PTV-Mx5 and PTV-Mx1, respectively) (Table VII). second premolar anchorage loss, the clinician might
Anchorage loss is frequently reported in the literature find it more satisfactory for distalizing purposes to
with intraoral appliances. Anchorage mainly depends better control the anchorage unit. However, the differ-
on the dental quality of the teeth. The resistance ences were small, and both appliances had similar
potential of these anchorage teeth is determined by the distalizing effects.
size of the anchorage and the number of teeth involved,
root topography and attachment level, and bone struc-
ture.34 The absence or irregularity of contact points CONCLUSIONS
between spaced or severely crowded anterior teeth can
also diminish the capacity of the anchorage unit to 1. The maxillary central incisors showed labial tip-
resist forward movement.38 The patient’s age was ping, protrusion, and a slight extrusion in both
correlated to the quality and the quantity of molar groups.
distalization and incisor protrusion, and early mixed 2. The maxillary premolars showed mesial movement
dentition was correlated to less anchorage loss than the in both groups but had statistically greater mesial
permanent dentition.34,35 The importance of the amount tipping and extrusion in the Jones jig group, indi-
of force activation is not well established in the cating more anchorage loss during molar distaliza-
literature. It is speculated that lighter forces promote tion with this appliance.
less anchorage loss,13,22 but, in several studies regard- 3. The maxillary first molars showed distal tipping,
ing Jones jig or pendulum appliances, various force distal movement, and a slight intrusion in both
levels were used, and a wide range of anchorage loss groups.
was observed.9,10,15-17,22,27 In spite of controlling 4. The mean amount of distalization and the monthly
these important factors in tooth distalization with rate of distal molar movement were statistically
intraoral appliances, it seems that, overall, there is similar in the 2 groups.
342 Patel et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
March 2009

REFERENCES 19. Gianelly AA, Vaitas AS, Thomas WM. The use of magnets to
move molars distally. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:
1. Brickman CD, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Evaluation of the Jones jig
161-7.
appliance for distal molar movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
20. Gianelly AA. Distal movement of the maxillary molars. Am J
Orthop 2000;118:526-34.
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:66-72.
2. Blechman AM, Smiley H. Magnetic force in orthodontics. Am J
21. Carano A, Testa M. The distal jet for upper molar distalization.
Orthod 1978;74:435-43.
J Clin Orthod 1996;30:374-80.
3. Gianelly AA, Vaitas AS, Thomas WM, Berger OG. Distalization
22. Gulati S, Kharbanda OP, Parkash H. Dental and skeletal changes
of molars with repelling magnets. J Clin Orthod 1988;22:40-4.
after intraoral molar distalization with sectional jig assembly.
4. Bondemark L, Kurol J. Distalization of maxillary first and
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:319-27.
second molars simultaneously with repelling magnets. Eur
J Orthod 1992;14:264-72. 23. Jeckel N, Rakosi T. Molar distalization by intra-oral force
5. Bondemark L, Kurol J, Bernhold M. Repelling magnets versus application. Eur J Orthod 1991;13:43-6.
superelastic nickel-titanium coils in simultaneous distal move- 24. Hilgers JJ. A palatal expansion appliance for non-compliance
ment of maxillary first and second molars. Angle Orthod 1994; therapy. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:491-7.
64:189-98. 25. Locatelli R, Bednar J, Dietz VS, Gianelly AA. Molar distaliza-
6. Gianelly AA, Bednar J, Dietz VS. Japanese NiTi coils used to tion with superelastic NiTi wire. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:277-9.
move molars distally. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99: 26. Kalra V. The K-loop molar distalizing appliance. J Clin Orthod
564-6. 1995;29:298-301.
7. Erverdi N, Koyuturk O, Kucukkeles N. Nickel-titanium coil 27. Bussick TJ, McNamara JA. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes
springs and repelling magnets: a comparison of two different associated with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofa-
intra-oral molar distalization techniques. Br J Orthod 1997;24: cial Orthop 2000;117:333-43.
47-53. 28. Chiu PP, McNamara JA, Franchi L. A comparison of two
8. Hilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for Class II non-compliance intraoral molar distalization appliances: distal jet versus pendu-
therapy. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:706-14. lum. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:353-65.
9. Byloff FK, Darendeliler MA, Clar E, Darendeliler A. Distal 29. Sandler PJ. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements. Br J
molar movement using the pendulum appliance. Part 2: the Orthod 1988;15:105-10.
effects of maxillary molar root uprighting bends. Angle Orthod 30. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological
1997;67:261-70. students. New York: Interscience Publications; 1940.
10. Byloff FK, Darendeliler MA. Distal molar movement using the 31. Baumrind S, Frantz RC. The reliability of head film measure-
pendulum appliance. Part 1: clinical and radiological evaluation. ments. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971;60:111-27.
Angle Orthod 1997;67:249-60. 32. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measure-
11. Joseph AA, Butchard CJ. An evaluation of the pendulum ments. Am J Orthod 1983;83:382-90.
“distalizing” appliance. Semin Orthod 2000;6:129-35. 33. Richardson A. A comparison of traditional and computerized
12. Kinzinger GSM, Syree C, Fritz UB, Diedrich PR. Molar distal- methods of cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:15-20.
ization with different pendulum appliances: in vitro registration 34. Kinzinger GSM, Gross U, Fritz UB, Diedrich PR. Anchorage
of orthodontic forces and moments in the initial phase. J Orofac quality of deciduous molars versus premolars for molar distal-
Orthop 2004;65:389-409. ization with a pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
13. Kinzinger GSM, Fritz UB, Sander FG, Diedrich PR. Efficiency Orthop 2005;127:314-23.
of a pendulum appliance for molar distalization related to second 35. Kinzinger GSM, Wehrbein H, Diedrich PR. Molar distalization
and third molar eruption stage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop with a modified pendulum appliance-—in vitro analysis of the
2004;125:8-23. force systems and in vivo study in children and adolescents.
14. Jones RD, White JM. Rapid Class II molar correction with an Angle Orthod 2005;75:558-67.
open-coil jig. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:661-4. 36. Cook AH, Sellke TA, BeGole EA. Control of the vertical
15. Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Evaluation of an intraoral maxillary molar dimension in Class II correction using a cervical headgear and
distalization technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; lower utility arch in growing patients. Part I. Am J Orthod
110:639-46. Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:376-88.
16. Haydar S, Üner O. Comparison of Jones jig molar distalization 37. Fuziy A, Almeida RR, Janson G, Angeliere F, Pinzan A. Sagittal,
appliance with extraoral traction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial vertical, and transverse changes consequent to maxillary molar
Orthop 2000;117:49-53. distalization with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dento-
17. Runge ME, Martin JT, Bukai F. Analysis of rapid maxillary facial Orthop 2006;130:502-10.
molar distal movement without patient cooperation. Am J Orthod 38. Mavropoulos A, Karamouzos A, Kiliaridis S, Papadopoulos MA.
Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:153-7. Efficiency of noncompliance simultaneous first and second upper
18. Blechman AM. Magnetic force systems in orthodontics. Clinical molar distalization: a three-dimensional tooth movement analy-
results of a pilot study. Am J Orthod 1985;87:201-10. sis. Angle Orthod 2005;75:532-9.