Retrospective investigation of the 3D effects of the Carriere Motion 3D appliance using model and cephalometric superimposition

Abstract

Objectives Carriere Motion 3D™ appliance (CMA) represents a method for molar distalization and correction of class II malocclusion. The aim was to investigate the 3D effects of the CMA by superimposing digital models and cephalometric X-rays. Materials and methods We retrospectively examined 16 patients treated with CMA in combination with class II elastics. We compared digitized models and cephalometric X-rays of records taken before therapy and after the removal of CMA. The records were superimposed to assess the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes. The results of the cephalometric X-ray analysis were compared to an untreated age- and gender-matched sample. Results Class II occlusion was corrected after 11.85 ± 4.70 months by 3.45 ± 2.33 mm. The average distalization of the upper first molars was 0.96 ± 0.80 mm. The analysis of the cephalometric X-rays confirmed a distalization of the upper first molars with distal tipping and revealed a mesialization of the lower first molars of 1.91 ± 1.72 mm. Importantly, CMA resulted in a mild correction of the skeletal class II relationship (ANB: − 0.71 ± 0.77°; Wits: − 1.99 ± 1.74 mm) and a protrusion of the lower incisors (2.94 ± 2.52°). Compared to the untreated control group, there was significant distalization of the upper first molars and canines with mesialization and extrusion of the lower first molars. Conclusion and clinical relevance CMA is an efficient method for treating class II malocclusions. However, the class II correction is only partially caused by a distalization of the upper molars.

A New Digital Method to Quantify the Effects Produced by Carriere Motion Appliance

“…Yin et al found a mean displacement of the upper canines of 3.5 mm ± 1.7 mm, regardless of the skeletal malocclusions [ 1 ]. Other recently reported data are displacements of 3.16 ± 1.89 mm [ 19 ] and 1.10 ± 0.89 mm [ 9 ]. Additionally, this study found a mean distalization displacement of 1.41 mm, which is comparable with the previously described results.…”

“…Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the treatment outcomes of using the CMA for the correction of class II malocclusions. Existing studies include case reports [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], cohort studies [ 1 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 17 , 19 ], and a systematic review and meta-analysis [ 18 ], and all of them have concluded that the changes are fundamentally of a dentoalveolar nature [ 1 , 5 , 8 , 11 , 18 , 19 ]. Thus, the present study analyzed dental displacement, regardless of the skeletal malocclusion.…”

“…There is evidence that the CMA (Henry Schein Inc., NY, USA) provides simple [ 2 ], efficient, and effective [ 8 ] correction of class II malocclusions. Among the main advantages of the CMA (Henry Schein Inc., NY, USA) are its insertion at the beginning of therapy when compliance is still high [ 7 ], its easy insertion and removal, its low invasiveness compared with bone-anchored distalization appliances, its elegant design, and the reduced size of the apparatus [ 9 ]. In addition, it offers a more positive overall experience and has fewer negative comfort-related side effects compared with other class II correction devices [ 10 ].…”

“…Although the CMA (Henry Schein Inc., NY, USA) has gained popularity among clinicians over the last decade, there are still few available studies that have evaluated the treatment efficacy and effects produced by this device for class II malocclusion correction [ 1 , 8 , 11 ]. Existing studies include case reports [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], cohort studies [ 1 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 16 , 17 ], and a systematic review and meta-analysis [ 18 ]. Several of these studies concluded that changes are primarily dentoalveolar in nature [ 1 , 5 , 8 , 11 , 18 , 19 ].…”

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

“…(7,8,10,14) In several previous studies, with the use of CMA, lower incisor proclination was a noticeable result. (7,8,9,10,12,13,14,16) Maxillary canine and rst molar were signi cantly distalized by -3.1 ± 0.9, and 3.2 ± 1.2 mm respectively in IZCG. While in EXG, they were signi cantly distalized by -2.3 ± 0.7 and 2.2 ± 0.8 mm respectively.…”