Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

Trial design

Parallel.

Objective

To compare skeletally anchored Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) for distalization of the maxillary buccal segment vs. Essix anchored CMA.

Methods

Thirty-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.

Results

Distalization 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.

Conclusion

IZC 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 registration

The ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) has this RCT registered as (NCT05499221) on 12/08/2022.

SUBMITTER: Ghozy EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10832169 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Ghozy Eglal Ahmed EA Albelasy Nehal Fouad NF Shamaa Marwa Sameh MS El-Bialy Ahmed A AA

BMC oral health 20240131 1

<h4>Trial design</h4>Parallel.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare skeletally anchored Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) for distalization of the maxillary buccal segment vs. Essix anchored CMA.<h4>Methods</h4>Thirty-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 l ...[more]

PMID: 38297285

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesTo compare the biomechanical characteristics of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners in conjunction with three types of miniscrew anchorage.Materials/methodsThree-dimensional (3D) finite element models of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners and three types of miniscrew anchorage were established, including (A) control group, (B) direct buccal miniscrew anchorage group, (C) direct palatal miniscrew anchorage group, and (D) indirect buccal miniscrew anchorage group. The 3D displacement of maxillary teeth and the principal stress (maximum tensile and compressive stress) on the root and periodontal ligament (PDL) during molar distalization were recorded.ResultsThe tooth displacement pattern during maxillary molar distalization in the four groups showed similarities, including labial tipping of anterior teeth, mesial and buccal tipping of premolars, and distal and buccal tipping of molars, but with varying magnitudes. Group C exhibited the greatest molar distalization, with the first molar achieving 0.1334 mm of crown distalization. Group D demonstrated a notable buccal crown movement (0.0682 mm) and intrusion (0.0316 mm) of the first premolar. Compared to Groups A and B, Groups C and D showed less labial crown tipping of the central incisor. Group B showed the greatest amount of maxillary incisor intrusion (central incisor: 0.0145 mm, lateral incisor: 0.0094 mm). Moreover, Groups C and D displayed significantly lower levels of compressive and tensile stress in the roots and PDL of the maxillary central and lateral incisors.LimitationMolar distalization is a dynamic process involving sequential tooth movement stages; however, our research primarily examined the tooth movement patterns in the initial aligner.Conclusions/implicationsThe use of miniscrew anchorage, especially direct palatal miniscrew anchorage, may enhance the treatment efficacy of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners, leading to increased molar distalization, reduced mesial movement of premolars, and minimized labial tipping of anterior teeth.

Project description:Objective This study aimed to compare dentoskeletal changes in skeletal class-II malocclusion with removable twin block appliance and fixed AdvanSync2 appliance.Materials and methods A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted over a span of 1 year at AFID at Rawalpindi. Thirty patients with skeletal class-II malocclusion, 16 males (53.3%) and 14 females (46.6%), were randomly selected and divided in two equal groups (15 each) to be treated with either fixed functional appliances (FFAs) or with removable functional appliances (RFAs). Out of 30 patients, 15 between cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages of 2 and 3 were treated with RFA (twin block appliances) and remaining 15 between CVM stages of 4 and 5 were treated with FFA (AdvanSync2 appliances). Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2), angular variable, and linear variable were measured to compare the dentoskeletal effects between the two groups.Statitical analysis Paired sample t-test was used to assess significant difference between variables at T1 (Pre-treatment) and T2 (Post-treatment) stage for both RFA and FFA group. Comparison among the RFA and FFA group was made using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U Test. IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used for evaluation.Results No significant difference was found in angular variables between the RFA and FFA groups (p > 0.05) with the exception of linear variables. Sella-posterior nasal spine (S-PNS) length significantly increased and Jarabak's ratio significantly decreased for FFA group (p = 0.010 and 0.045, respectively), when compared with RFA group.Conclusion Both the appliances, twin block (RFA) and AdvanSync2 (FFA), are effective for correction of skeletal class-II malocclusion. Both the appliances produced similar effects in the sagittal plane but for better vertical control twin block should be the appliance of choice. AdvanSync2 appliance could be preferred over twin block appliance when dentoalveolar and slight retrusive effect on the maxilla is desired especially for individuals in postpubertal growth spurt.

Dataset Information

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 design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets