Introduction: With the advent of mini-implants, Class II correction has become routine. The study's goal was to compare the "Bone-Anchored Pendulum Appliance (BAPA)" to the "Bone-Anchored Intraoral Bodily Molar Distalizer (BAIBMD)" in terms of clinical efficacy.
Materials and procedures: Five boys and five girls were among the 10 patients in this split-mouth trial who had to have their molars distalized. On one side, BAPA Construction, and on the other, BAIBMD was piloted. A titanium mini-screw was used to secure both appliances to the bone since this was a spilled-mouth technique. The first molar bands to apply 200 g of force were used for both devices, as with all the other components that were similar for both appliances. For both sides, the nature, duration, and rate of tooth movement were compared. Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, descriptive statistics for several parameters were examined.
Results: Distalization was accomplished on both sides with clinical success. The rate of distalization did not show any significant variation. Less time was needed for distalization with BAPA, as evidenced by the statistically substantial variances in treatment duration between the two groups. Molar tipping was noticed in BAPA, and it was statistically significant.
Conclusion: While the pace of distalization was equal for both appliances, BAIBMD required more time than BAPA but resulted in a distal tooth movement that was mostly translatory in nature.
Keywords: Anchorage; bone-anchored pendulum; distalization; malocclusion.
Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.