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

Headgear therapy in children with Class II malocclusion and the role of compliance on treatment outcome: A nine-month randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate three-dimensional movements of maxillary teeth during headgear treatment in Class II growing children, using digital analytical tools, and to determine the effects of compliance on these movements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 9-month parallel-group randomized controlled trial was carried out on 40 children with Class II malocclusion, aged 8-12 years, half assigned to receive a cervical headgear and half to a no-treatment group, using block randomization. Subjects in the treatment group were instructed to wear the headgear for 12 hours daily and monitored using an electronic module. After 9 months, the following dental outcomes were measured: first maxillary molar distalisation, rotation, tip and torque, arch depth, and interpremolar and intermolar distances. Caregivers and participants were not blinded to group assignments, but those assessing outcomes were. Linear regression models were used to detect differences between groups and correlation coefficients to find correlations between compliance and dental outcomes.

RESULTS

All 40 included patients were analysed. A significant difference in molar distalisation was observed between the treatment (1.2 mm) and control groups (-0.2 mm). Arch depth change was also increased to a larger extent in the treatment groups (1.3 mm vs 0.1 mm), as was the interpremolar distance (1.9 mm vs 0.4 mm). In contrast, no significant differences in molar rotation or torque change were observed. With regard to compliance, average compliance was 55%. A significant correlation was found between molar distalisation and compliance in the treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Headgear therapy has significant effects on molar distalisation, arch depth, and arch width. Compliance has a significant positive effect on molar distalisation.

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

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.

Three-dimensional Evaluation of the Carriere Motion 3D Appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to quantify the outcomes of adolescent patients with Class II malocclusion treated with the Carriere Motion 3D Appliance (CMA) combined with full fixed appliances.

METHODS

Cone-beam computed tomography scans of 22 patients were available before orthodontic treatment (T1), at removal of the CMA (T2), and posttreatment (T3). The average age of the patients was 13.5 ± 1.6 years at T1, 14.1 ± 0.2 years at T2, and 15.6 ± 0.5 years at T3. The 3-dimensional image analysis procedures were performed using ITK-SNAP (version 3.6.0; www.itksnap.org, Hatfield, Pa) and SlicerCMF (version 4.11.0; http://www.slicer.org, Cambridge, Mass); skeletal and dentoalveolar changes relative to cranial base, maxillary, and mandibular regional superimpositions were evaluated.

RESULTS

Changes were analyzed with 1 sample t tests using the mean differences during the CMA phase (T1 to T2) and total treatment time (T1 to T3). Significant skeletal changes included a slight reduction of ANB from T1 to T3, mandibular growth (Co-Gn increment of 1.2 mm and 3.3 mm from T1 to T2 and T1 to T3, respectively), inferior displacement of point A, and anterior and inferior displacement of point B. The mandibular plane did not change significantly during treatment. During the CMA treatment, posterior tipping and distal rotation of the maxillary molars, tip back and inferior displacement of the maxillary canines, significant mesial rotation, and superior displacement of the mandibular molars were observed. These movements rebounded during the full fixed appliance phase except for the molar and canine vertical displacements. Clinically significant dental changes during treatment included a reduction in overjet and overbite, Class II correction of the molar and canine relationship, and proclination of the mandibular incisors.

CONCLUSIONS

The CMA is an effective treatment modality for Class II correction in growing patients because of a combination of mesial movement of the mandibular molar, distal rotation of the maxillary molar, and anterior displacement of the mandible.