Effects Of Jones Jig Appliance In Maxillary First

Pakistan Oral & Dent. Jr. 26 (2) Dec. 2006
EFFECTS OF JONES JIG APPLIANCE IN MAXILLARY FIRST MOLAR DISTALIZATION
*M.WAHEED-UL-HAMID, BDS, MCPS (Orthodontics), M.S, M.Orth **ARFAN-UL-HAQ, BDS, MCPS (Operative Dentistry), FCPS (Orthodontics)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment effects of Jones jig appliance during class-II molar correction with a focus on the magnitude of maxillary first molar distalization, its tipping, extrusion and rotation as well as anchorage loss at premolar- incisor unit. A complete set of pre and post distalization records including history, clinical examination, Lateral cephalometric radiograph, Orthopentomogram, study casts and photographs was taken for each patient. Pre and post distalization lateral cephalometric radiographs were traced for evaluation of molar, premolar and incisors movements while models were used to find out molars rotation. Results showed that there was 5.30 mm space created between molar and premolar during 5.65 months; out of which 3.30 mm (62.26 %) showed molar distalization and 2.00mm (37.74 %) anchorage loss. There was 6.70° molar tipping with 0.70 mm extrusion while second premolar showed 7.58° tipping and 1.58 mm extrusion. Incisors exhibited an insignificant labial tipping of 0.75°. Both right and left molars showed 2.00° and 2.55° highly significant disto palatal rotation
Key words: Jones Jig, Distalization, Molar correction, Anchorage loss.

INTRODUCTION

The intra-oral molar distalizing appliances include

The primary goal of orthodontic treatment is at- inter-arch and intra-arch. The inter-arch appliances in-

tainment of an "ideal occlusion", this involves place- clude Herbst appliance, Jasper jumpers, adjustable bite

ment of first molars in class I relationship. The most corrector, MARA (Mandibular Anterior Repositioning

•

common presentation for orthodontic treatment is Class-II Appliance), Eureka spring, Saif spring, Klepper super

malocclusion, which is characterized by "post-normal"

spring and these depend upon opposing arch for anchor-
3,5

molar relationship1.

age requirements, . On the other hand, the intra-arch

appliances include, Ni Ti coil springs, Nickel titanium

Non-extraction approaches to orthodontic treatment arch wires, repelling magnets, Jones jig and distal jet

have increased interest in appliances and techniques appliance. These appliances rely on Nance acrylic

that help to create additional space with in the dental arches2. Many researchers have developed numerous treatment modalities for Class-II molar correction from

palatal button for anchorage attached to banded maxillary first premolars, second premolars or deciduous second molars, 5'6'7.

compliance oriented headgear treatment to non-
compliance treatments using intra-oral devices to distalize the maxillary first molars in to class I occlu-
sion3,4.

Jones and White8 introduced the Jones Jig appliance for molar distalization, in which an open coil nickel titanium spring is used to deliver 70-75 grams of force over a compression range of 1-5 mm, to the maxil-lary

Patient compliance is one of the problems with molars. Jones jig has been recommended for bilateral as

orthodontic treatment. The techniques that require well as unilateral molar distalization and also molar

patient cooperation are headgear (extraoral traction), derotation in the treatment of Class-II malocclusion. The

Class-II intermaxillry elastics, Wilson bimetric Jones jig appliance contain 15 mm nickel titanium coil

distalizing arch system, Molar distalizing bow, Acrylic spring as an active force component that can be activated

Cervical Occipital appliance (A.C.0 .0) and removable by 1-5 mm compression to exert optimum force for

functional

appliances

3 .

distalization of maxillary first molars8.

Prof Dr M. Waheed-ul-Hamid, M.Orth, M.S, MCPS (Orthodontics). Head of Orthodontics Department de,Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. ** Dr Arfan-Ul-Haq, FCPS (Orthodontics). Senior Demonstrator de,Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. Tel03334207669, E-mail. [email protected]
203

Numerous studies have been carried out to evaluate treatment effects of Jones jig appliance either as a single appliance or in comparison with similar appliances, but no such study has been established on Pakistani population 910,11,12. The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment effects of Jones jig appliance with a focus on the magnitude of maxillary first molar distalization, its tipping, extrusion and rotation as well as anchorage loss at premolar- incisor unit.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirty patients (18 males and 12 females) of both sexes with an age range of 12-14 years (mean age 12 years 10 months; 154.26±2.04 months) were selected from orthodontics department of de'Montmorency College of Dentistry/ Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan.
Selection Criteria
The sample in this study was judged Class-II if a 2mm pr more discrepancy existed from the mesiobuccal cusp of the maxillary first molar and buccal groove of the mandibular first molar. Mandibular arch was planned for non—extraction treatment where there was no arch length discrepancy or mild crowding, maxillary arch length discrepancy ranged between 5-7 mm. Normal or low angle vertical pattern with SN- mandibular plane angle 32 degrees or less, maxillary — mandibular plane angle 25 degrees or less. Class I or mild Class-II skeletal pattern with ANB 4-5 degrees. Class-II division I with mild proclination and Class-II division II with mild crowding. No other orthodontic treatment or molar distalization procedure performed before or during the study. All the permanent teeth especially maxillary second molars fully erupted into occlusion. A complete set of records including history, clinical examination, Lateral cephalometric radiograph, Orthopentomogram, upper/ lower study casts, extra oral and Intraoral photographs was taken for each patient and same records were repeated after distalization. Informed consent from every patient/ parents was taken before treatment.
Jones Jig Appliance (Fig-1)
Jones and Whites introduced the Jones jig appliance*. This system includes an active arm and an anchorage unit. The active arm or jig assembly is a 0.0303twire that holds a nickel titanium coil spring and a sliding hook. Anchorage unit is a modified Nance appliance off of the maxillary second premolars, with 0.0363tstainless steel wire used to unite the premolar bands and palatal acrylic button of about 1.003tdiameter.
* American orthodontics, 1714 Cambridge aye, Sheboygan, I 53081-1048, USA

Components of Jones jig Appliance (Fig 1)
1. Jones jig 0.303" wire with two arms (one for insertion into 0.0453" headgear tube and other into 0.0183" main slot) and a Hook for elastic ligature attachment.
2. Sliding islet for activation.
3. Nickel-Titanium spring.
4. Maxillary second premolar bands.
5. Maxillary first molar bands.
6. Modified Nance appliance attached to Maxillary second premolar bands.
Fabrication of Modified Nance appliance8
After getting sufficient separation between maxillary first molars and second premolars, appropriate size premolar bands were selected and fitted in the patient's mouth and impression made with the bands in situ. These bands were gently removed from the patient's mouth and carefully seated in the impression and, then model poured in dental stone.
A 0.0363" stainless steel wire with a central loop was adopted on the palatal surface of cast, extending it as far as the canine anteriorly and soldered to the second premolars bands. Quick cure acrylic was mixed and placed around the central loop of the wire to make an acrylic button of about 1.03" in diameter. The acrylic button was extended anteriorly up to incisive papilla without impingement, and posteriorly up to the distal level of second premolars. After polymerization, the appliance was removed from the cast, finished and polished.
Cementation of Modified Nance appliance and Insertion of Jones jig
On the subsequent visit this modified Nance appliance was cemented to the maxillary second premolars and appropriate size first molar bands were selected and cemented. The length of Jones jig assembly was adjusted according to the patient's arch (molar tube to middle of canine), excessive was cut, nickel titanium coil spring and sliding hook rolled over the Jones jig, then anteriorly it was bent into an eyelet adjacent to the canine. Jones Jig has got two arms; one arm was fitted in to 0.0453" headgear tube and other in to the main arch wire slot of the maxillary first molar band. After fitting the Jones Jig in to the corresponding tube and slot, the appliance was held in place by tying a 0.0103" steel ligature wire around the molar tube and hook of Jones jig. Applying elastic ligature on hook of molar tube and Jones jig enhanced further stability. After fitting the Jones jig into the corresponding molar tube and slot, the appliance was activated by tying the activation islet with a 0.103" steel ligature off of the maxillary second premolars. Activation of Jones jig

204

appliance was achieved by applying 100-gram force on Cephalometric radiograph were traced manually maxillary first molars measured with Corex force using 0.1 mm black marker on 0.003-inch thick

measuring gauge.

acetate paper with a variable contrast view box used

This combination appliance utilized modified Nance for illumination. The Cephalometric landmarks were button as anchorage and Jones jig with nickel titanium marked manually and all the planes and angles were spring to deliver 100 grams force for maxillary molar constructed as illustrated on (Fig 3 & 4).

distalization. All the patients were instructed to maintain All double images were traced with the distal and

good oral hygiene.

smaller outline of the structure. The term centroid was

Reactivation
The patient's were reviewed on regular interval of 4 weeks; the coil springs were reactivated to maintain the constant 100 grams force at every visit. This monthly activation was carried out till the achievement of desired class I molar relationship with I mm over correction or slight Class-III position i.e. Mesiobuccal cusp of maxillary first molar occlude I mm

used in this analysis to signify a constructed point on the permanent molars and premolars. The centroid is located at the mid point of a line drawn from the mesial and distal greatest convexity of the individual molars and premolars3,9,13.All the measurements were made nearest to the 0.5° for angular and 0.1mm for linear changes".
Method Error

distal to buccal groove of mandibular first molar.

To evaluate the error of landmarks identification

Fabrication of Nance Holding Appliance for and tracing; 15 cephalogram were randomly selected

Retention

and retraced by the same examiner after one month of

the original landmarks identification and tracing.

After removal of Jones jig and Nance appliance, Tracing error was calculated based on the differences

Nance holding arch was fabricated for retention and

stability of distalized molar position. Maxillary impres-

sion was made in alginate impression material and poured

with the molar bands in situ, 0363" stainless steel wire

was soldered to the palatal aspect of molar bands.

Anteriorly this wire was embedded in to acrylic button

with cold cure acrylic. Appliance finished, pol-

o

fished and cemented into the patient's mouth8.

A)—Cephalometric Analysis

Cephalometric radiographs were taken at the following times:
Ti = Immediately prior to placement of appliances. T2 = Immediately after the removal of appliances.

Fig 2. Typical bilateral application of Jones jig appliance with palatal acrylic button (occlusal view)

205

1-Maxillary incisor apex, 2- Maxillary incisor tip, 3Maxillary incisor labial contour, 4- Maxillary premolar mesial, 5-Maxillary premolar distal, 6- Maxillary Pt molar mesial, 7- Maxillary 1st molar distal, 11-Porion, 12- S-sella turcica, 13-SE point, 14-N-Nasion, 15Orbitale, 16-Ptm point, 17-PNS, 18-ANS, 19-point-A, 20-Menton, 21-Go, 22-Pn-pronasale, 23-Upper lip, 24Lower lip, 25-soft tissue Pogonion, 26. S-N plane, 27.FP- Frankfort plane, 28. PP- Palatal plane, 29-PTVPterygoid vertical plane

molar and second premolar in sagittal plane by constructing lines perpendicular to PTV- plane passing through the centroid of each tooth (fig 4).
Dental changes in vertical plane as extrusion of maxillary first molar and second premolar were assessed by measuring the vertical distance from palatal plane to the centroid of these teeth.
Linear distance of maxillary incisor was measured by drawing perpendicular line from PTVplane to incisor tip (Fig.4).
Angular measurements were obtained by constructing a line from centroid of each molar and premolar perpendicular to the mesial- distal line of the respective tooth being measured. The angle that was formed between perpendicular line from the centroid of each tooth and SN plane was used to measure angular changes associated with distalization.
The inclination of maxillary central incisor was measured to the anterior cranial base by passing a line through the long axis of tooth and measuring the inferior posterior angle relative to SN plane. (Fig 4)
All cephalometric values were measured and divided in to following two groups":

Fig 3. Cephalometric Landmarks and Planes

between the original Cephalometric values and the same values for retracing. All the variables of the original tracings were compared to the retracing variables and a paired t-test was applied to determine significance of difference. The results of the statistical analysis demonstrated that none of the variables used in this study showed an error of statistical significance at p<0.05.

Palatal Plane

Cephalometric measurements (Fig 4)

All radiographs were analyzed Cephalometric changes in the following way:
1. Cephalometric measurements at T1. 2. Cephalometric measurements at T2. 3. T1-T2 Changes

for 1-PTV-maxillary first molar centroid, 2-PTV-maxillary second premolar centroid, 3-PTV-maxillary incisor tip, 4-PP-maxillary first molar centroid, 5-PPmaxillary second premolar centroid, 6-SN-maxillary central incisor, 7-SN-maxillary premolar, 8-SNmaxillary first molar

Pterygoid vertical (PTV) was used as the reference Fig 4. Cephalometric Dental Linear and angular

plane to evaluate linear changes of maxillary first

Measurements

206

1. Dental-linear measurements • PTV- maxillary first molar centroid (mm) • PTV- maxillary second premolar centroid (mm)

dard error of mean of each series of sample at T land T2. A paired t-test was applied to analyze intra group differences between pre and post-distalization variables to determine significant changes.

• PTV- maxillary central incisor tip (mm)

The level of significance was chosen at:

• PP- maxillary first molar centroid (mm)
• PP- maxillary second premolar centroid (mm)
2. Dental-angular measurements
• SN- Maxillary central incisor long axis (degrees)
• SN- Maxillary first molar long axis (degrees)
• SN- Maxillary second premolar long axis
(degrees) b. Cast Analysis (Figure-5)
Pre- distalization (T1) and post-distalization (T2) maxillary casts were taken and then analyzed to determine rotation of the maxillary first molars3' 14. The models were photocopied to a 1:1 ratio15. A line was drawn from incisive papilla along the median palatal raphae to construct midline. The angle formed between the midline and a line passing through the mesiobuccal and mesiopalatal cusp tips of the maxillary first molars determined the rotation of the molars (Fig 5). All the measurements were made nearest to the 0.5° for angular changes12.

P< 0.001= Highly significant; P< 0.01= Significant; NS = Non significant

RESULTS

The results of statistical analysis for the sample

are given in tables 1-4, where Table 1 shows number

of patients, mean, standard deviation, standard error

mean, minimum and maximum dental linear, dental

angular,

pre

distalization

cephalometric

measurements made at T1, i.e. before application of

Jones jig appliance.

Table 2 shows number of patients, mean, standard deviation, standard error mean, minimum and maximum dental linear, dental angular, post-distalization cephalometric measurements made at T2, i.e. the time at completion of molar distalization and removal of Jones jig appliance.

Table 3 shows mean distalization time, predistalization (T1) and post-distalization (T2) means, difference of means, and p-value from pre to post distalization dental linear, dental angular, cephalometric measurements.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The data was analyzed using SPSS version 8.0 software to deduct mean, standard deviation and stan-

Table 4 shows predistalization (T1) and postdistalization (T2) means, standard deviation, standard error mean, p-value and rotation of right and left molars from pre to post distalization cast measurements.
Linear Measurements

a) Sagittal plane

Mean pretreatment measurement from PTV-plane to maxillary first molar centroid was 24.80±2.75 mm and mean post distalization measurement was 21.50±2.64.mm There was 3.30mm difference ofmeans which showed distalization of maxillary first molar at significance level of (p<0.001).

Mean pretreatment measurement from PTV-plane to maxillary second premolar centroid was 33.60±2.61 mm and mean post distalization measurement was 35.60±2.76 mm. There was 2.00 mm difference of means, which showed mesial movement of maxillary second premolar significant at (p<0.01).

1) Angle between palatal midline and a line bisecting the right mesiobuccal and mesiolingual cusp tips, 2) Angle between palatal midline and a line bisecting the left mesiobuccal and mesiolingual cusp tips.
Fig 5 Maxillary Model Measurements

Mean pretreatment measurement from PTV-plane to maxillary incisor tip was 55.20± mm and mean post distalization measurement was 56.90±2.93 mm There was difference of 1.70 mm which showed forward movement of maxillary incisors that was significant at (p<0.01).

207

TABLE-1: (T1) DETAIL OF DENTAL LINEAR AND ANGULAR MEASUREMENTS WITH MEANS, SD, S.E.M, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PREDISTALIZATION CEPHALOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS

MEASUREMENTS

Mean

SD

s.e.m Minimum Maximum

Dental linear (30)

PTV- maxillary first molar centroid (mm)

24.80 2.75

0.50

PTV-maxillary second premolar centroid (mm) 33.60 2.61

0.47

PTV- maxillary incisor tip (mm)

55.20 2.41

0.40

PP- maxillary first molar centroid (mm)

21.00 2.53

0.46

PP- maxillary second premolar centroid (mm) 21.40 2.79

0.51

Dental Angular (30)

SN-maxillary incisor (degrees)

103.25 5.17

0.94

SN-maxillary second premolar (degrees)

71.60 3.68

0.67

SN-maxillary first molar (degrees)

71.10 3.54

0.65

19.80 28.50 50.00 16.50 16.00
92.00 65.00 65.00

30.00 38.50 59.00 25.8 26.00
112.00 79.00 79.00

TABLE-2: (T2) DETAIL OF DENTAL LINEAR AND ANGULAR MEASUREMENTS WITH MEAN, SD, S.E.M, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM POST-DISTALIZATION CEPHALOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS

MEASUREMENTS Dental linear (30) PTV- maxillary first molar centroid (mm) PTV-maxillary second premolar centroid (mm) PTV- maxillary incisor tip (mm) PP- maxillary first molar centroid (mm) PP-maxillary second premolar centroid (mm)

Mean
21.50 35.60 56.90 21.77 22.98

SD
2.64 2.76 2.93 2.58 2.68

s.e.m
0.48 0.50 0.53 0.47 0.49

Minimum Maximum

16.00 30.50 50.00 17.00 17.80

26.90 40.50
61.00 26.80 28.50

Dental angular (30) SN-maxillary incisor (degrees) SN-maxillary second premolar (degrees) SN-maxillary first molar (degrees)

104.00 5.50

1.00

78.30

3.93

0.72

63.70

3.57

0.65

92.50 70.00
57.00

114.00 85.00 70.50

b) Vertical Plane
Mean pretreatment measurement from Palatal plane to maxillary first molar centroid was 21.00±2.53 mm and mean post distalization measurement was 21.77±2.58 mm. There was 0.77 mm difference of means that showed insignificant extrusion of maxillary first molar.
Mean pretreatment measurement from Palatal plane to maxillary second premolar centroid was 21.40±2.79 mm and mean post distalization measurement was 23.00±2.68 mm. There was 1.60 mm difference of means, which showed extrusion of maxillary second premolar at significance level of (p<0.01).
Angular Measurements
Mean pretreatment measurement for angle between SN-plane to maxillary incisor long axis was 103.25±5.17° and mean post distalization measurement was 104.00±5.50°. There was difference of 0.75° that showed statistically insignificant forward tipping of maxillary incisor

Mean pretreatment measurement for angle between SN-plane to maxillary premolar centroid was 71.60±3.68° and mean post distalization measurement was 78.30±3.93°. There was difference of 6.70° that showed mesial tipping of maxillary second premolar statistically significant at (p<0.001)
Mean pretreatment measurement for angle between SN-plane to maxillary first molar centroid was 71.10±3.54° and mean post distalization measurement was 63.70±3.57°. There was difference of 7.40° that showed distal tipping of maxillary first molar statistically significant at (p<0.001)
Molar Rotation
The results of sample showed pretreatment and post distalization measurements for right maxillary molar 56.33±3.74° and 58.33±4.13° with insignificant difference of 2.00°. Pretreatment and post distalization measurements of left molar were 56.58±3.62° and 59.13±4.32° with significant difference of 2.55°at p<0.001.These results showed that right and left maxillary first molars were rotated 2.00° and 2.55° with Jones jig appliance.

208

TABLE-3: T1- T2 DETAIL OF DENTAL LINEAR AND ANGULAR MEASUREMENTS INCLUDING MEAN DISTALIZATION TIME, MEAN OF PRE AND POST DISTALIZATION DIFFERENCE OF MEANS AND P-VALUE FROM PRE TO POST DISTALIZATION

MEASUREMENTS
Dental linear (30) PTV- maxillary first molar centroid (mm) PTV-maxillary second premolar centroid (mm) PTV- maxillary incisor tip (mm) PP- maxillary first molar centroid (mm) PP- maxillary second premolar centroid (mm) Dental angular (30) SN-maxillary incisor (degrees) SN-maxillary premolar centroid (degrees) SN-maxillary first molar centroid (degrees)

Rx time months
5.65 5.65 5.65 5.65 5.65
5.65 5.65 5.65

Mean T1
24.80 33.60 55.20 21.00 21.40
103.25 71.60 71.10

Mean 12

Diff of means

P- value

21.50 35.60 56.90 21.70 23.00
104.00 78.30 63.70

3.30

P<0.001

2.00

P<0.001

1.70

P<0.01

0.70

NS

1.60

P<0.01

0.75

NS

6.70

P<0.001

7.40

P<0.001

P<0.001=Highly significant difference NS=Non significant difference

P<0.01= Significant difference

TABLE- 4: MAXILLARY RIGHT AND LEFT FIRST MOLAR ROTATION; MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STANDARD ERROR OF MEAN AND P-VALUE FOR PRETREATMENT (T1) AND POST DISTALIZATION (T2) MEASUREMENTS.

Maxillary Right first molar

T1

T2

Maxillary Left first molar

T1

T2

n

Mean

SD

s.e.m

p-value

30

56.33°

3.74

0.68

30

58.33°

4.13

0.75

N.S

30

56.58°

3.62

0.66

30

59.13°

4.32

0.79

P<0.001

Mean Rotation
P<0.001=Highly significant difference NS=Non significant difference

Right 2.0°
P<0.01= Significant difference

Left 2.55°

DISCUSSION
This study was conducted on thirty patients to Uner11te clinical effects of Jones Jig molar distalizing appliance. A force of 100 grams was exerted from nickel titanium spring and it took average of 5.65 months for correction of Class-II molar relationship. Results of this study were also compared with previous studies.
Molar Distalization, Tipping and Extrusion
During a period of 5.65 months, the Jones jig distalized the maxillary first molars an average of 3.30 mm /side to correct Class-II molar relation ship in to class-I occlusion. For the present sample of 30 patients treated with Jones jig appliance, the maxillary first molars were also tipped distally an average of 6.70° and extruded 0.70 mm. These changes are similar but slightly differ witUner11 study,rickman et al" where maxillary molar was distalized 2.51 mm and tipped

distally 7.53° with 0.10 mm insignificant extrusioT2 Haydar and Unerll found 2.20 mm molar distalization with 7.96° distal tipping and 0.72 mm extrusion. The results of this sample are greater than all other studies that may be due to 100 grams force as compared to 7075 grams force used in other studies. The comparison of distalization seen in this sample with other distalization devices showed 2.1mm with Herbst appliance16, 2.16 mm mean distalization with Wilson arches seen by Muse et a117 and 2.1 mm mean distalization seen by Itoh et al18 with repelling magnets.
Rate of Molar Distalization
The rate of maxillary molar distalization seen in this study was 0.58 mm per month as compared to 0.19 mm per month in Brickman et al.13 study, 0.89 mm per month in Hayder and Unerll study, 0.35 mm per month in. Rung et al.9, 0.92 mm per month in Gulati et al. 1° study with Jones jig appliance.

209

Space Creation
During molar distalization with Jones jig appliance, 5.30 mm space was created between maxillary first molar and second premolar, however (3.30 mm) 62.26 % of this space was due to distal movement of molars, while (2.00 mm) 37.70 % was anchorage loss due to mesial movement of second premolars.
Anchorage Loss
The forces used to distalize the maxillary first molars has a reciprocal force that must be resisted in order to fully distalize the maxillary first molar to the desired class I position, however the premolar -incisor segment cannot fully resist and subsequently displaced mesially. The aim of all intra-oral molar distalization modalities is to correct Class-II molar relationship with minimum side effects. The anchor unit in this study consisted of a modified Nance appliance off of the maxillary second premolars with 1.003tsize acrylic button coverage in the depth of palate. The anchor unit was unable to completely resist the reciprocal mesial force of Jones jig appliance13. In this sample maxillary second premolar was mesialized 2.00 mm (37.70%), tipped mesially 7.58° and extruded 1.58 mm. The results of Brickman et al.13 showed 2.00 mm (44.50 %) mesialization, 4.76° mesial tipping and 1.88 mm extrusion of maxillary second premolar. Gulati et al.10 noted 2.23 mm (44.60 %), 2.60° mesial tipping of maxillary second premolars. The results of this sample showed similar anchorage loss at second premolar as compared to the results of Brickman et al.13, Hayder11 Rung 9 and Gulati10° studies. The anchorage loss seen with other molar distalization appliances exhibited in different manner.
The maxillary central incisor was proclined an average of 0.75° relative to SN line that was statistically insignificant; this was less than 2.60° reported by Brickman et al13, 3.00 ° seen by Rung et al9 and 1.00° found by Hayder and Uner11. The incisor tipping found in this study was much less than the 6.00° reported by Bondemark and Kurol12, 3.8° by Itoh et al. 18 with repelling magnets and 2.4°reported by Ghosh and Nanda3 with the pendulum appliance.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of results achieved with this study conducted on thirty patients, following conclusions were drawn:
1- Jones jig appliance distalized maxillary first molars quite effectively.
2- There was 5.30 mm space created between maxillary first molar and second premolar, out of which

3.30 mm showed molar distalization while 2.00 mm was anchorage loss as mesial movement of second premolar.
3- There were some unwanted effects produced by Jones jig appliances in terms of molar and premolar extrusion as well as tipping and also molar rotation.
Jones jig is simple, effective, easy to use and comfortable appliance for maxillary molar distalization.
REFERENCES
1 Atherton GA, Glenny AM and O'Brien K Development and use of a taxonomy to carry out a systematic review of the literature on methods described to effect distal movement of maxillary molars. J Orthod 2002; 29:211-16.
2 Cetlin NM and Ten Hoeve A. Nonextraction treatment. J Clin Orthod 1983; 17:396-413
3 Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Evaluation of an intraoral maxillary molar distalization technique. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 110: 639-46
4 Carano A, Testa M. The distal jet for upper molar distalization. J Clin Orthod 1996; 30: 374-390
5 Mcsherry PF. Class-II correction-reducing patient compliance. Br J Orthod 2000; 24:219-23.
6 Gianelly AA, Bednar J, Dietz VS. Japanese NiTi coils used to move molars distally. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991; 99: 564-66.
7 Locatelli R. Molar distalization with super elastic Ni-Ti wires. J Clin Orthod 1992; 26, 227-29.
8 Jones R, White JM. Rapid Class-II molar correction with an open-coil jig. J Clin Orthod 1992; 26: 661-64.
9 Runge ME, Martin JT, Bukai F. Analysis of rapid maxillary molar distal movement without patient cooperation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999; 115: 153-57.
10 Gulati S, Kharbanda OP, Parkash H. Dental and skeletal changes after intraoral molar distalization with sectional jig assembly. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 114: 319-27
11 Haydar S, Uner 0. Comparison of Jones Jig molar distalization appliance with extraoral traction. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000; 117:49-53.
12 Bondemark L and Kurol J. Distalization of the maxillary first and second molrs simultaneously with repelling magnets. Eur J Ortod 1992; 14:264-72.
13 Brickman CD, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Evaluation of Jones jig appliance for distal molar movement. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000; 118:526-34
14 Keles A, Sayinsu K. A new approach in maxillary molar distalization: Intraoral bodily molar distalizer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117: 39-48.
15 Champagth M. Reliability of measurements of photocopies of study models. J Clin Orthod 1992; 26:648-50.
16 Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. The headgear effect of the Herbst appliance: A cephalometric long-term study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103: 510-20.
17 Muse DS, Fillman MJ, Emerson WJ, Mitchell RD. Molar and incisal changes with the Wilson rapid molar distalization. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104: 556-65.
18 Itoh T, Tukoda T, Kiyosue S, Hirose T, Matsumoto M and Chaconas SP. Molar distalization with repelling magnets. J Clin Orthod 1991; 25:611-17

210