Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography comparison of shorty and standard Class II Carriere Motion appliance.

OBJECTIVES To compare treatment effects of the standard and shorty Class II Carriere Motion appliances (CMAs) on adolescent patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty adolescents with Class II malocclusion formed group 1, who were treated with shorty CMA (n = 25, 12.66 ± 1.05 years), and age- and sex-matched group 2, who were treated with standard CMA (n = 25, 12.73 ± 1.07 years). Treatment effects were analyzed by tracing with Invivo software to compare pretreatment (T1) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images with post-CMA (T2) CBCT images. A total of 23 measurements were compared within and between groups. RESULTS In groups 1 and 2, maxillary first molars showed significant distal movement from T1 to T2 (1.83 ± 2.11 mm and 2.14 ± 1.34 mm, respectively), with distal tipping and rotation in group 1 (6.52° ± 3.99° and 3.15° ± 7.52°, respectively) but only distal tipping (7.03° ± 3.45°) in group 2. Similarly, in both groups, the maxillary first premolars experienced significant distal movement with distal tipping but no significant rotation. In group 1, maxillary canines did not undergo significant distal movement. In both groups 1 and 2, mandibular first molars experienced significant mesial movement (1.85 ± 1.88 mm and 2.44 ± 2.02 mm, respectively). Group 1 showed statistically significantly less reduction in overjet and less canine distal movement with less distal tipping than group 2 (α < .05). CONCLUSIONS The shorty CMA achieved Class II correction similarly to the standard CMA, with less change in overjet and distal tipping movement of the maxillary canines.

[1]  H. Ueno,et al.  The Class II Carriere Motion appliance: A 3D CBCT evaluation of the effects on the dentition. , 2020, The Angle orthodontist.

[2]  H. Rodríguez Long-Term Stability of Two-Phase Class II Treatment with the Carriere Motion Appliance. , 2019, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[3]  J. McNamara,et al.  Treatment effects of the Carriere® Motion 3D™ appliance for the correction of Class II malocclusion in adolescents. , 2019, The Angle orthodontist.

[4]  G. Sameshima,et al.  Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances , 2019, Progress in Orthodontics.

[5]  S. Yadav,et al.  Intraoral Approaches for Maxillary Molar Distalization: Case Series. , 2017, Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR.

[6]  J. Sebastian,et al.  PowerScope a Class II corrector – A case report , 2016, Contemporary clinical dentistry.

[7]  V. Koretsi,et al.  Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2016, European journal of orthodontics.

[8]  J. English,et al.  Treatment effects of the Carrière distalizer using lingual arch and full fixed appliances , 2014 .

[9]  H. Saltaji,et al.  Adolescent patients' experience with the Carriere distalizer appliance. , 2013, European journal of paediatric dentistry.

[10]  G. Janson,et al.  Correction of Class II malocclusion with Class II elastics: a systematic review. , 2013, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[11]  H. Rodríguez Nonextraction treatment of a Class II open bite in an adult patient. , 2012, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[12]  H. Rodríguez Unilateral application of the Carriere Distalizer. , 2011, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[13]  L. Franchi,et al.  Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients. , 2011, The Angle orthodontist.

[14]  G. Kinzinger,et al.  The skeletal frog appliance for maxillary molar distalization. , 2011, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[15]  Hongtu Zhu,et al.  Accuracy and landmark error calculation using cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. , 2010, The Angle orthodontist.

[16]  M. Papadopoulos Orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion with miniscrew implants. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[17]  G. Antonarakis,et al.  Maxillary molar distalization with noncompliance intramaxillary appliances in Class II malocclusion. A systematic review. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[18]  P. Buschang,et al.  Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[19]  M. Toroğlu,et al.  Two different applications of Class II elastics with nonextraction segmental techniques. , 2007, The Angle orthodontist.

[20]  Luis Carrière,et al.  A new Class II distalizer. , 2004, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[21]  C. Garvan,et al.  Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[22]  R. Nanda,et al.  Dental and orthopedic effects of high-pull headgear in treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusion. , 1992, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[23]  H. Pancherz Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. , 1979, American journal of orthodontics.

[24]  E. E. West,et al.  Distal displacement of the maxilla and the upper first molar. , 1979, American journal of orthodontics.