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

Abstract

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.

Anchorage control using miniscrews in comparison to Essix appliance in treatment of postpubertal patients with Class II malocclusion using Carrière Motion Appliance:

“…The mean treatment time in both groups was greater than that reported in other studies. [8][9][10][11] This could have been due to the current study being conducted on postpubertal patients with increased bone density as well as to the presence of the maxillary second molar, which was not the case in some of the other studies. However, when compared with skeletal anchorage distalizing appliances or conventional anchorage appliances (8.23 and 7.95 months, respectively), the treatment duration was shorter.…”

“…The amount of distalization was similar to that reported in previous studies. 8,9,11 However, when compared to other skeletal anchorage distalizing appliances (5.35 mm) or conventional anchorage appliances (4.25 mm), the amount of distalization was much less. 16 On the other hand, with the other conventional distalizing appliances anchorage loss was expressed as mesial movement of the upper premolars along with mesial movement and proclination of the upper incisors.…”

“…Several case reports [3][4][5][6][7] have evaluated the use of the CMA, and a retrospective study 8 compared the treatment effects when two different types of anchorage were used in the mandibular arch-full fixed orthodontic appliances or a lingual arch-and concluded that both methods led to proclination of the lower incisors. Other studies [9][10][11] evaluated the treatment changes produced by the CMA with the Essix appliance used for anchorage and found significant mesial movement and mesial tipping of the first mandibular molar, along with lower incisor proclination.…”

3D Printed Orthodontic Distalizer with Individual Base for Tooth-Borne Hybrid Approach in Class II Unilateral Malocclusions Treatment

“…In this study both standard and shorty versions of CMAs had the posterior bracket pad bonded to the maxillary first molar with a ball and socket joint to allow for tipping and rotation of the maxillary molar. The anterior bracket pad, which has a hook, is bonded to the maxillary canine in the standard CMA and to the maxillary first premolar in the shorty CMA [53]. The simple design makes CMAs more comfortable than the Forsus appliance [53,54].…”

“…The anterior bracket pad, which has a hook, is bonded to the maxillary canine in the standard CMA and to the maxillary first premolar in the shorty CMA [53]. The simple design makes CMAs more comfortable than the Forsus appliance [53,54].…”