Research Information System
IV. INTERNATIONAL VAN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CONGRESS, Van, Turkey, 21 - 23 March 2025, pp.260-261, (Summary Text)
Aim: The aim of our study is to present the treatment of our patients with dental Class II
malocclusion using two different skeletal anchorage-supported maxillary molar distalization
methods.
Method: Case 1. A 14 years old male patient was admitted to our clinic. In the wrist film taken,
it was determined that the patient was in the DP3 u stage. A cephalometric film was taken from
the patient. The cephalometric values before treatment were as follows: SNA: 80° SNB: 76°
ANB: 4° U1SN: 94° IMPA: 88° GoMe-SN: 29° FMA: 19°. The patient underwent distalization
with IZC screw. The post-treatment cephalometric values are as follows: SNA: 80° SNB: 78°
ANB: 1° U1SN: 107° IMPA: 93° GoMe-SN: 29° FMA: 19°.
Case 2.A 15 years and 1 month old female patient was admitted to our clinic. In the wrist film
taken, it was determined that the patient was in the MP 3 cap stage. A cephalometric film was
taken from the patient. Cephalometric values before treatment were as follows: SNA: 81° SNB:
80° ANB: 1° U1SN: 102° IMPA: 96° GoMe-SN: 20° FMA: 10°. Maxillary molar distalization
was performed with Keleş Slider appliance. The post-treatment cephalometric values are as
follows: SNA: 80° SNB: 78° ANB: 2° U1SN: 94° IMPA: 98° GoMe-SN: 23° FMA: 13°.
Conclusion: Dental Class II patients were treated with the distalization of the upper molar teeth.
In our study, one of the two patients was treated with IZC screws, while the other was treated
with the Keleş Slider Appliance. Skeletal anchorage support was utilized in both methods. Both
approaches can be effectively used in Class II cases requiring maxillary molar distalization.