Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2025
Face Mask versus Carrière Motion® Class III Appliance: Comparison of Skeletal, Soft Tissue, and Dental Effects in Growing Individuals.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Polat Melike, Yılmaz Berza
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of the face mask and Carrière Motion® III appliance in growing patients with Class III malocclusion associated with maxillary retrognathia. The null hypothesis was that both appliances, applied after rapid maxillary expansion, would have similar effects.
METHODS: Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes were evaluated using lateral cephalometric radiographs of 26 patients aged 6-9 years, taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). Cephalometric analyses were performed using Nemoceph® software (NEMOTEC, Madrid, Spain). Statistical analyses were carried out with MedCalc version 12.7.7 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium) with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULTS: SNA°, A-NasionPerp, and Co-A increased significantly in both groups, with no significant intergroup difference. Co-Gn, Wits, ANB°, S-N, and the articular angle also increased significantly in both groups. SNB° decreased significantly only in the Carrière Motion® III group. Greater anterior maxillary rotation occurred with the face mask, while reduced rotation was observed with the Carrière Motion® III. Lower facial height decreased slightly but significantly in the Carrière Motion® III group, and increased in the face mask group. Overjet and molar relationship improved significantly in both groups. The UL-E line distance decreased in the face mask group, while the Carrière Motion® III showed no significant soft tissue changes.
CONCLUSION: The null hypothesis was rejected. The two appliances had different effects; however, the Carrière Motion® III proved effective for early Class III treatment and may be considered an alternative, particularly for patients with social concerns about extraoral traction.
METHODS: Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes were evaluated using lateral cephalometric radiographs of 26 patients aged 6-9 years, taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). Cephalometric analyses were performed using Nemoceph® software (NEMOTEC, Madrid, Spain). Statistical analyses were carried out with MedCalc version 12.7.7 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium) with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULTS: SNA°, A-NasionPerp, and Co-A increased significantly in both groups, with no significant intergroup difference. Co-Gn, Wits, ANB°, S-N, and the articular angle also increased significantly in both groups. SNB° decreased significantly only in the Carrière Motion® III group. Greater anterior maxillary rotation occurred with the face mask, while reduced rotation was observed with the Carrière Motion® III. Lower facial height decreased slightly but significantly in the Carrière Motion® III group, and increased in the face mask group. Overjet and molar relationship improved significantly in both groups. The UL-E line distance decreased in the face mask group, while the Carrière Motion® III showed no significant soft tissue changes.
CONCLUSION: The null hypothesis was rejected. The two appliances had different effects; however, the Carrière Motion® III proved effective for early Class III treatment and may be considered an alternative, particularly for patients with social concerns about extraoral traction.