Trial reportBMC oral health2024
Cephalometric and digital model analysis of dentoskeletal effects of infrazygomatic miniscrew vs. Essix- anchored Carriere Motion appliance for distalization of maxillary buccal segment: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05499221 (Segmental Distalization by Bone Anchored Carriere Motion Appliance vs. Conventional One), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Segmental Distalization by Bone Anchored Carriere Motion Appliance vs. Conventional One
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictability of mesiodistal movement of upper and lower molars with clear aligners: a systematic review.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative evaluation of skeletally anchored modified intermaxillary versus intramaxillary force systems for maxillary molar distalization: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Effects of Carriere Motion Appliance and Twin Block Appliances in Class II Correction-A Retrospective Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
TRIAL
designParallel.
objectiveTo compare skeletally anchored Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) for distalization of the maxillary buccal segment vs. Essix anchored CMA.
methodsThirty-two class II malocclusion patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups. One group was treated with infrazygomatic (IZC) miniscrew- anchored CMA (IZCG) and the other group treated with Essix retainer- anchored CMA (EXG). Two lateral cephalograms and two digital models for upper and lower arches were taken for each patient: immediately before intervention and after distalization had been completed.
resultsDistalization period was not significantly different between the two groups. In contrast to EXG, IZCG showed insignificant difference in ANB, lower incisor proclination, and mesial movement of the lower first molar. There was significant rotation with distal movement of maxillary canine and first molar in both groups.
conclusionIZC anchored CMA could eliminate the side effects of class II elastics regarding lower incisor proclination, mesial movement lower molars with a more significant amount of distalization of the maxillary buccal segment but with significant molar rotation.
trial registrationThe ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) has this RCT registered as (NCT05499221) on 12/08/2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.