Authors’ response

Abstract

We appreciate Dr Watson’s interest in on our article, and we are pleased to have an opportunity to make a few further comments that might help clarify some of the issues he raised. A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: Distal jet versus pendulumAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 128Issue 3PreviewIntroduction: This study compared the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects on Class II malocclusions of the distal jet with concurrent full fixed appliances and the pendulum appliance both followed by fixed appliances. Methods: The 2 samples each consisted of 32 subjects (19 girls and 13 boys) with mean ages at the start of treatment of 12 years 3 months in the distal jet group and 12 years 6 months in the pendulum group. The durations of the distalization phase of treatment were 10 months in the distal jet group and 7 months in the pendulum group, and the durations of the second phase of treatment with fixed appliances were 18 months in the distal jet group and 24 months in the pendulum group. Full-Text PDF Distal jet versus pendulum applianceAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 129Issue 1PreviewIn the article, “A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: Distal jet versus pendulum” (Chiu PP, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:353-65), the distinctions between 2 intraoral molar distalization appliances provide useful evidence-based material for clinicians. Full-Text PDF