Cargando…
Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the treatment effectiveness of Carriere Distalizer in comparison to Class II intermaxillary elastics and Forsus. METHODS: Three groups of patients treated with Class II intermaxillary elastics (n = 18), Carriere Distalizer (n = 18), and Forsus ap...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31209589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0280-2 |
_version_ | 1783427905050640384 |
---|---|
author | Yin, Kaifeng Han, Eugene Guo, Jing Yasumura, Toshihiko Grauer, Dan Sameshima, Glenn |
author_facet | Yin, Kaifeng Han, Eugene Guo, Jing Yasumura, Toshihiko Grauer, Dan Sameshima, Glenn |
author_sort | Yin, Kaifeng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the treatment effectiveness of Carriere Distalizer in comparison to Class II intermaxillary elastics and Forsus. METHODS: Three groups of patients treated with Class II intermaxillary elastics (n = 18), Carriere Distalizer (n = 18), and Forsus appliance (n = 18) were collected from three private orthodontic practices. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) 10–14 years old of start age with permanent dentition, (2) no history of previous orthodontic treatment, (3) complete pre- and post-treatment records, (4) dental Class II division 1 (end-to-end or more), (5) no pre-treatment transverse discrepancy, (6) non-extraction treatment plan, and (7) Class I post-treatment occlusal relationship. The data consisted of cephalometric and study model measurements from pre- and post-treatment records and treatment time. Two-tail Student t test was used to analyze the differences in cephalometric changes and dental corrections between Carriere Distalizer group and Class II elastics/Forsus group. RESULTS: All three groups of patients showed no differences in the age of treatment initiation, pre-treatment cephalometric measurements and discrepancy index (DI). The time of Class II correction for Carriere Distalizer was significantly shorter than that for Class II elastics; there was no difference in the length of Class II correction between Carriere Distalizer and Forsus groups. The amount of Class II correction (canine/molar relationship) was significantly lower for Carriere Distalizer when compared with Forsus appliance. Carriere Distalizer, similarly to Class II elastics, did not induce any statistically significant correction in skeletal component (ANB and Wits appraisal). CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinically significant skeletal correction induced by Carriere Distalizer in growing patients. Carriere Distalizer can be applied to treatment of mild to moderate Class II dental malocclusion over 6 months on average, although the total treatment time may be prolonged due to various side effects. Overall, the Carriere Distalizer appears to be no more effective or efficient than alternatives in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6579799 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65797992019-07-11 Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances Yin, Kaifeng Han, Eugene Guo, Jing Yasumura, Toshihiko Grauer, Dan Sameshima, Glenn Prog Orthod Research BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the treatment effectiveness of Carriere Distalizer in comparison to Class II intermaxillary elastics and Forsus. METHODS: Three groups of patients treated with Class II intermaxillary elastics (n = 18), Carriere Distalizer (n = 18), and Forsus appliance (n = 18) were collected from three private orthodontic practices. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) 10–14 years old of start age with permanent dentition, (2) no history of previous orthodontic treatment, (3) complete pre- and post-treatment records, (4) dental Class II division 1 (end-to-end or more), (5) no pre-treatment transverse discrepancy, (6) non-extraction treatment plan, and (7) Class I post-treatment occlusal relationship. The data consisted of cephalometric and study model measurements from pre- and post-treatment records and treatment time. Two-tail Student t test was used to analyze the differences in cephalometric changes and dental corrections between Carriere Distalizer group and Class II elastics/Forsus group. RESULTS: All three groups of patients showed no differences in the age of treatment initiation, pre-treatment cephalometric measurements and discrepancy index (DI). The time of Class II correction for Carriere Distalizer was significantly shorter than that for Class II elastics; there was no difference in the length of Class II correction between Carriere Distalizer and Forsus groups. The amount of Class II correction (canine/molar relationship) was significantly lower for Carriere Distalizer when compared with Forsus appliance. Carriere Distalizer, similarly to Class II elastics, did not induce any statistically significant correction in skeletal component (ANB and Wits appraisal). CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinically significant skeletal correction induced by Carriere Distalizer in growing patients. Carriere Distalizer can be applied to treatment of mild to moderate Class II dental malocclusion over 6 months on average, although the total treatment time may be prolonged due to various side effects. Overall, the Carriere Distalizer appears to be no more effective or efficient than alternatives in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6579799/ /pubmed/31209589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0280-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Yin, Kaifeng Han, Eugene Guo, Jing Yasumura, Toshihiko Grauer, Dan Sameshima, Glenn Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances |
title | Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances |
title_full | Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances |
title_fullStr | Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances |
title_short | Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances |
title_sort | evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of carriere distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of class ii appliances |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579799/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31209589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0280-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yinkaifeng evaluatingthetreatmenteffectivenessandefficiencyofcarrieredistalizeracephalometricandstudymodelcomparisonofclassiiappliances AT haneugene evaluatingthetreatmenteffectivenessandefficiencyofcarrieredistalizeracephalometricandstudymodelcomparisonofclassiiappliances AT guojing evaluatingthetreatmenteffectivenessandefficiencyofcarrieredistalizeracephalometricandstudymodelcomparisonofclassiiappliances AT yasumuratoshihiko evaluatingthetreatmenteffectivenessandefficiencyofcarrieredistalizeracephalometricandstudymodelcomparisonofclassiiappliances AT grauerdan evaluatingthetreatmenteffectivenessandefficiencyofcarrieredistalizeracephalometricandstudymodelcomparisonofclassiiappliances AT sameshimaglenn evaluatingthetreatmenteffectivenessandefficiencyofcarrieredistalizeracephalometricandstudymodelcomparisonofclassiiappliances |