Cephalometric and digital model analysis of dentoskeletal effects of infrazygomatic miniscrew vs. Essix- anchored Carriere Motion appliance for distalization of maxillary buccal segment: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Trial design Parallel. Objective To compare skeletally anchored Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) for distalization of the maxillary buccal segment vs. Essix anchored CMA. Methods Thirty-two class II malocclusion patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups. One group was treated with infrazygomatic (IZC) miniscrew- anchored CMA (IZCG) and the other group treated with Essix retainer- anchored CMA (EXG). Two lateral cephalograms and two digital models for upper and lower arches were taken for each patient: immediately before intervention and after distalization had been completed. Results Distalization period was not significantly different between the two groups. In contrast to EXG, IZCG showed insignificant difference in ANB, lower incisor proclination, and mesial movement of the lower first molar. There was significant rotation with distal movement of maxillary canine and first molar in both groups. Conclusion IZC anchored CMA could eliminate the side effects of class II elastics regarding lower incisor proclination, mesial movement lower molars with a more significant amount of distalization of the maxillary buccal segment but with significant molar rotation. Trial registration The ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) has this RCT registered as (NCT05499221) on 12/08/2022.

Evaluating the Effects of Carriere Motion Appliance and Twin Block Appliances in Class II Correction—A Retrospective Study

“…Nonetheless, the minor anchorage loss seen in the CMA group is presumably attributed to the relatively minimal retraction of the maxillary incisors, the reduced duration of elastic wear [26], and the use of an Essix retainer simultaneously with the CMA compared to the labial arch used with the TB. In this regard, a recent study introduced the use of infrazygomatic miniscrew-anchored CMA without any intervention in the mandible in order to prevent the side effects of Class II elastics regarding lower incisor proclination and the mesial movement of the lower molars [14]. When using the conventional CMA, special care should be taken when treating Class II patients with proclined lower incisors as it can influence the gingivae, especially in individuals with thin gingival biotypes [16].…”

“…The correction of Class II malocclusion can also be achieved by upper molar distalization through various methods, including the Pendulum [11], Carriere Motion 3D™ appliance [12], and mini screws [13,14]. The Carriere Motion 3D™ appliance (CMA; Henry Schein Orthodontics, Carlsbad, CA, USA) was introduced in 2004.…”