References

Todd JE, Dodd T Children's Dental Health in the United Kingdom, 1983: A Survey Carried out by the Social Survey Division of OPCS, on Behalf of the United Kingdom Health Departments, in Collaboration with the Dental Schools of the Universities of Birmingham and Newcastle.London: HMSO; 1985
Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, Worthington HV, O'Brien KD Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 11 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003452.pub3
McNamara JA Components of class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981; 51:177-202
Luca L, Francesca C, Daniela G Cephalometric analysis of dental and skeletal effects of Carriere Motion 3D appliance for Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022; 161:659-665 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.12.024
Clermont A, Albert A, Bruwier A Effects of the Class II Carriere motion appliance in phase I treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Orthod. 2022; 56:285-293
Benson PE, Tinsley D, O'Dwyer JJ Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage – a randomized clinical trial: cephalometric results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:606-615 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.040
Barakat D, Bakdach WMM, Youssef M Treatment effects of Carriere motion appliance on patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthod. 2021; 19:353-364 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.05.005
Carrière L A new Class II distalizer. J Clin Orthod. 2004; 38:224-231
Wilson B, Konstantoni N, Kim KB Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography comparison of shorty and standard Class II Carriere motion appliance. Angle Orthod. 2021; 91:423-432 https://doi.org/10.2319/041320-295.1
Kim-Berman H, McNamara JA, Lints JP Treatment effects of the Carriere motion 3D appliance for the correction of Class II malocclusion in adolescents. Angle Orthod. 2019; 89:839-846 https://doi.org/10.2319/121418-872.1
Yin K, Han E, Guo J Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances. Prog Orthod. 2019; 20 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0280-2
Sandifer CL, English JD, Colville CD Treatment effects of the Carrière distalizer using lingual arch and full fixed appliances. J World Fed Orthod. 2014; 3:e49-e54
Biggs EV, Benavides E, McNamara JA Three-dimensional evaluation of the carriere motion 3D appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023; 164:824-836 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.05.031
Lombardo L, Cremonini F, Oliverio T Class II correction with carriere motion 3D appliance and clear aligner therapy. J Clin Orthod. 2022; 56:187-193
Areepong D, Kim KB, Oliver DR, Ueno H The Class II Carriere motion appliance. Angle Orthod. 2020; 90:491-499 https://doi.org/10.2319/080919-523.1
Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38:113-126 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv034
Pancherz H Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1979; 76:423-442 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(79)90227-6
Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR Class II non-extraction patients treated with the forsus fatigue resistant device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78:332-338 https://doi.org/10.2319/030607-115.1
Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the forsus fatigue resistant device in Class II patients. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81:678-683 https://doi.org/10.2319/102710-629.1
Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S Maxillary molar distalization with noncompliance intramaxillary appliances in Class II malocclusion. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78:1133-1140 https://doi.org/10.2319/101507-406.1

How to effectively and efficiently use the Class II Carriere motion appliance

From Volume 18, Issue 1, February 2025 | Pages 16-25

Authors

Mariam Jawad

BDS (Hons), MFDS RCS(Ed), Senior House Officer, Northwick Park Hospital, London

Articles by Mariam Jawad

Aslam Alkadhimi

BaBDentSc (Hons), MOrth RCS (Eng), MClinDent (Distinction), MFD RCS (Ire), MFDS RCS (Eng)

BDentSc(Hons), FDS (Orth) RCS(Eng), MOrth RCS(Eng), MClinDent (UCL), MFD RCS(Ire), MFDS RCS(Eng), Consultant Orthodontist, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland; Clinical Academic, Dublin Dental University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

Articles by Aslam Alkadhimi

Email Aslam Alkadhimi

Abstract

Class II malocclusion is a relatively common orthodontic presentation. Management can include various approaches depending on the severity of the malocclusion, the patient's age, wishes, expectations and the clinician's experience. As well as the increased overjet commonly seen in Class II malocclusion, the overbite usually, but not always, is increased. Managing and controlling both the anteroposterior and vertical elements of the malocclusion simultaneously can be very efficient and lead to a reduced overall treatment duration. The Carriere Class II 3D motion appliance (CMA) is a relatively new concept in managing Class II malocclusion. The simple design makes CMAs more comfortable than other appliances. The distal force on the posterior maxillary segment is applied by elastics, worn from the anterior hook to a button or hook on the mandibular first molar. The protocol for mandibular anchorage includes the use of a removable Essix-type clear retainer that has been modified posteriorly to accommodate the bonded buccal tubes or hooks on the mandibular molars. This article presents two cases where patients were concurrently treated with CMA and lower fixed appliances.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Correction of Class II malocclusion can be made more efficient if both the anteroposterior and vertical components are addressed simultaneously.

Article

Class II malocclusion is a relatively common orthodontic presentation. Despite its prevalence, the management of Class II malocclusion has always represented a challenge.1,2 The aetiology of Class II malocclusion can be multifactorial in nature and is most likely due to a combination of several dento-alveolar and skeletal factors, among which the most common is mandibular retrognathia.3,4 Correct diagnosis and identification of the cause of Class II and any other vertical component to the malocclusion is paramount for adequate treatment.3,4

Several options can be used to correct an increased overjet. However, the management approach for Class II malocclusion depends on several factors, including, but not limited to: the patient's age, preferences and compliance; the aetiology of the malocclusion; and the clinician's experience and preferences.5 Most Class II malocclusions are efficiently treated in the late-mixed dentition using various methods, including headgear, distalizers, functional appliances, premolar extractions and fixed appliances with Class II intermaxillary elastics. Molar distalization is one approach for treating Class II malocclusion,6,7 especially when functional appliances are not thought to produce the desired correction owing to suboptimal compliance or older age. Depending on the type of discrepancy, orthognathic surgery may also be indicated.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available