American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2025
The effects of treatment in Class II correction: A comparison between the Carriere Motion 3D appliance and a simple alternative.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Har Zion Gilad, Katzhendler Eyal, Rabin Miryam, Bader Farraj Amal, Einy Shmuel
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Carriere Motion 3D appliance (CMA) is gaining popularity for the correction of Class II dentoalveolar relationships. Recently, Gilad's Modified Corrector (GMC), a simple, "do-it-yourself" alternative, was introduced. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the GMC in treating Class II malocclusions and compared it with the CMA.
METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted on 42 adolescent patients: 21 were treated using the GMC and 21 using the CMA. Cephalometric radiographs were taken pretreatment and after achieving a Class I posterior relationship. They were analyzed, and statistical comparisons were made between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: Both appliances effectively corrected the Class II molar relationship. The changes were primarily dentoalveolar in nature. The maxillary first molar was distalized, tipped distally, and also derotated by the 2 appliances. Both appliances mesialized the mandibular dentition, causing minimal proclination and protrusion of the mandibular incisors. The treatment duration was comparable for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The GMC and CMA effectively correct Class II malocclusions probably through similar mechanisms. The GMC appliance may offer a practical alternative to the CMA.
METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis was conducted on 42 adolescent patients: 21 were treated using the GMC and 21 using the CMA. Cephalometric radiographs were taken pretreatment and after achieving a Class I posterior relationship. They were analyzed, and statistical comparisons were made between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: Both appliances effectively corrected the Class II molar relationship. The changes were primarily dentoalveolar in nature. The maxillary first molar was distalized, tipped distally, and also derotated by the 2 appliances. Both appliances mesialized the mandibular dentition, causing minimal proclination and protrusion of the mandibular incisors. The treatment duration was comparable for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The GMC and CMA effectively correct Class II malocclusions probably through similar mechanisms. The GMC appliance may offer a practical alternative to the CMA.