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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yin, Kaifeng, Han, Eugene, Guo, Jing, Yasumura, Toshihiko, Grauer, Dan, Sameshima, Glenn
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