Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026
Measuring Maxillary Posterior Tooth Movement: A Model Assessment using Palatal and Dental Superimposition
Published on: February 23, 2024
Intraoral distalizer effects with conventional and skeletal anchorage: a meta-analysis
Roberto Henrique da Costa Grec1, Guilherme Janson, Nuria Castello Branco
1Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. robertogrec@usp.br
Introduction:
The aims of this meta-analysis were to quantify and to compare the amounts of distalization and anchorage loss of conventional and skeletal anchorage methods in the correction of Class II malocclusion with intraoral distalizers.
Methods:
The literature was searched through 5 electronic databases, and inclusion criteria were applied. Articles that presented pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric values were preferred. Quality assessments of the studies were performed. The averages and standard deviations of molar and premolar effects were extracted from the studies to perform a meta-analysis.
Results:
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 40 studies were included in the systematic review. After the quality analysis, 2 articles were classified as high quality, 27 as medium quality, and 11 as low quality. For the meta-analysis, 6 studies were included, and they showed average molar distalization amounts of 3.34 mm with conventional anchorage and 5.10 mm with skeletal anchorage. The meta-analysis of premolar movement showed estimates of combined effects of 2.30 mm (mesialization) in studies with conventional anchorage and -4.01 mm (distalization) in studies with skeletal anchorage.
Conclusions:
There was scientific evidence that both anchorage systems are effective for distalization; however, with skeletal anchorage, there was no anchorage loss when direct anchorage was used.
