[In-office distalizer as Motion Carriere versus Herbst appliance: a comparative study by superimpositions on 156 cases].

INTRODUCTION

Among the class II dental supported therapeutic devices, the Carriere Motion Appliance (Henri Schein) was introduced in 2004 followed by in-office adjustments. The objective of this study was to evaluate, by superimpositions, the dento-skeletal effects of the in-office distalizer (D) close to the Carriere Motion Appliance compared to the reference treatment: the Herbst appliance (B).

MATERIAL AND METHOD: A retrospective intention-to-treat study was conducted. Patients had to be in class II, 1 bilateral, have growth potential, two successive lateral cephalograms. The criteria evaluated were cephalometric, mainly from the Pancherz analysis. Statistical tests were performed with a threshold of 5%.

RESULTS

Overall, 116 patients treated with D and multi-attachment appliance (MA) and 40 patients treated with B and MA were included. D and B slow maxillary advance, stimulate mandibular advance and correct the skeletal Class II. They normalize the molar class by distalizing the maxillary arch (palato-position of the maxillary incisors, retreat of the maxillary first molar) and by mesializing the mandibular arch (vestibulo-position and vestibulo-version of the mandibular incisors by 5 to 6°, advance of the mandibular first molar). They provide good control of facial divergence, but with a clockwise tilt of the occlusal plane.

DISCUSSION: Randomized trials are needed to confirm our results.

CONCLUSION

With similar adverse effects, the in-office distalizer may be an interesting alternative because of its smaller volume, comfort and easy manufacture.