ArticleDentistry journal2024
Evaluating the Effects of Carriere Motion Appliance and Twin Block Appliances in Class II Correction-A Retrospective Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This retrospective study compared Class II orthodontic non-extraction treatment using Carriere Motion Appliance (CMA) and Twin Block (TB) appliances.
methodsThe treatment of 38 patients was assessed. Pre- and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed to evaluate skeletal, dental, and soft tissue treatment outcomes and efficacy.
resultsBoth appliances effectively corrected the Class II molar relationship. When measured at the distal aspect of the first molar, TB achieved 4.22 mm, while CMA had a 2.55 mm correction. When measured in the mesial aspect, the CMA achieved a 3.9 mm correction. The changes in SNB and ANB were statistically significant only in the TB group. The CMA appliance demonstrated statistically significantly less protrusion of the mandibular incisors and less upper incisor retrusion without vertical changes compared to the TB appliance. The TB demonstrated statistically significant lower lip protrusion compared to the CMA.
conclusionThe CMA corrects Class II malocclusions only by exerting a dentoalveolar influence and does not demonstrate the added effects associated with TB, such as elongation of lower facial height (LFH) and less loss of lower anchorage. Nonetheless, the correction in the TB group comprised both dentoalveolar and skeletal components. The CMA promotes a multidirectional upper and lower molar movement, and despite our 2D cephalometric analysis, we were able to estimate the extent of upper molar derotation.
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.