Comparative distalization effects

of Jones jig and pendulum

appliance

Mayara Paim Patel,a Guilherme

Janson,b Jos Fernando Bauru, Brazil

Mohammad Saoo
PG orthodontics

INTRODUCTION
Nonextraction treatment for Class II malocclusion
often requires distal movement of the maxillary
molars.
Generally correction of this malocclusion involves
application of an external force via headgear to the
maxillary molars, which mainly needs patients
compliance.
Intraoral devices and techniques for maxillary
molar distal movement. Magnets have been used
since 1978 for molar distalization, followed by
several other appliances with the same purpose
such as, the pendulum, and the Jones jig.

 The Jones jig and the pendulum are noncompliance

appliances for molar distalization.
Some authors found that:
Pendulum produced greater molar distalization than
the Jones jig.
Molar tipping from the pendulum can be reduced when
molar uprighting bends are incorporated in it.
The amounts of anchorage loss of the premolars were
similar for both appliances.

AIM

To compare the dentoalveolar effects of treatment

with Jones jig and pendulum appliances for molar
distalization in Class II malocclusion patients.

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 So Paulo, Brazil.
Inclusion criteria
1. Class II malocclusion,
2. All permanent teeth up to the first molars erupted at
pretreatment
3. No severe mandibular crowding
4. No previous orthodontic treatment.

. Lateral cephalograms of each patient were obtained

before and after molar distalization.
. The sample was divided into 2 groups.

Group 1

Group 2

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 .
Four patients had a full-cusp
Class II molar relationship;
8 had a one half-cusp Class II
molar relationship;
1 had a three quarters Class II
molar relationship,
7 had a one quarter-cusp Class II
molar relationship.
The coil spring was activated 5
mm every 4 weeks to deliver
100 g of force.
A Nance button was also used as
anchorage.
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
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
1 had a one quarter-cusp Class II
molar relationship.
All subjects in this group had the
second molars erupted.
pendulum springs were activated
parallel to the palatal midline,
with a mean force of about 250 g,
The mean molar distalization time
was 1.18 years(SD, 0.28; range,
0.68-1.79 years).

 In both groups, the appliances were used until the

maxillary first molars were distalized to a Class I
relationship.
Pretreatment and postdistalization cephalometric
radiographs were taken of each patient
Landmark were identifications by 1 investigator
and then digitized.
The cephalometric measurements of the maxillary
incisors, premolars, and first molars are described.

 The centroid is the midpoint on a horizontal line

from the greatest mesial and distal convexity of
the 2-dimensional outline of the molars and the
premolars.

A month after the first measurements, 40

randomly selected cephalograms (20
pretreatment, 20 postdistalization) were retraced
and remeasured by the same examiner.

Statistical analyses
Class II molar relationship severity and the
number of patients with erupted maxillary second
molars between the groups were compared with
chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

Intergroup comparisons of pretreatment age,

treatment time, pretreatment variables, and
treatment changes were performed with t tests,
and the results were considered significant at P
<0.05.

Results
The groups were compatible for initial age, Class II
molar relationship severity, and number of
patients with erupted maxillary second molars.
Only treatment time and postdistalization age
were significantly different between the groups.

 The pretreatment skeletal characteristics were

similar in the groups. The Jones jig group had
more protruded and labially tipped maxillary
incisors than did the pendulum group at
pretreatment.

 The maxillary second premolars showed greater

mesial tipping and extrusion in the Jones jig
group. The monthly rates of distal molar
movement were similar in both groups.

DISCUSSION
There was great compatibility between the groups
regarding Class II malocclusion severity, the
presence of the maxillary second molars, and
pretreatment age
Nevertheless, the pendulum group had a
significantly greater postdistalization age and
longer treatment time
Probably, this was because the subjects in the
pendulum group had all second molars erupted
and a slightly greater malocclusion severity at
pretreatment.

 At pretreatment in the investigated variables, the

Jones jig group had only greater labial inclination
and protrusion of the maxillary incisors than the
pendulum group
Treatment changes of the skeletal variables were
similar in the Jones jig and the pendulum groups.

Most studies showed cephalometrically the

behavior of the maxillary incisors after molar
distalization i.e protrusion and labial tipping,
confirming the anchorage loss caused by the
reciprocal force of distalization.

 There was greater mesial tipping and extrusion of

the second premolars in the Jones jig group than
in the pendulum group.

The second premolars in the pendulum appliance

group tended to have more bodily movement.

The mean molar distalization (PTV-Mx6) was close

to the anchorage loss of the premolars and the
incisors

 The distalization effects on the first maxillary

molars were similar in the 2 groups and similar to
most studies in the literature.

Bussick and McNamara found mean molar

distalization of 5.7 mm for the pendulum appliance,
but 57 of 101 patients had no erupted permanent
maxillary second molars. In our study, all subjects
in the pendulum group had these teeth erupted;
this could justify the smaller distalization amount.

 Gulati et al found a mean molar distalization of 2.78

mm in only 3 months for the Jones jig with a force of
150 g. In our study, molar distalization in the Jones
jig group was greater in spite of the lighter force
used (100 g). However, treatment time was
considerably longer.

As the pendulum appliance produced less second

premolar anchorage loss, the clinician might find it
more satisfactory for distalizing purposes to better
control the anchorage unit. However, the differences
were small, and both appliances had similar
distalizing effects.

CONCLUSIONS
The maxillary central incisors showed labial tipping,
protrusion, and a slight extrusion in both groups.

The maxillary premolars showed mesial movement

in both groups but had statistically greater mesial
tipping and extrusion in the Jones jig group,
indicating more anchorage loss during molar
distalization with this appliance.

 The maxillary first molars showed distal tipping,

distal movement, and a slight intrusion in both
groups.

The mean amount of distalization and the monthly

rate of distal molar movement were statistically
similar in the 2 groups.