Sınıf II Maloklüzyonun Carriere Motion Apareyi ile Tedavisi

Abstract

Sınıf II maloklüzyon ortodontide sıklıkla karşılaştığımız problemler arasındadır. İskeletsel Sınıf II olan hastalar büyüme döneminde fonksiyonel apareylerle tedavi edilebilir. Büyüme gelişimi tamamlanmış hastalarda ise ortognatik cerrahi ve kamuflaj tedavileri uygulanabilir. Hastalar genellikle ortognatik cerrahinin risklerinden ötürü kamuflaj tedavisini tercih ederler. Bu vakamızda büyüme dönemi bitmiş hastamıza Carriere Motion apareyi ile kamuflaj tedavisi uygulanmıştır. Apareyin etkileri klinik ve radyografik olarak incelenmiştir.

Keywords

• Carriere Motion apareyi
• distalizasyon
• kamuflaj tedavisi
• sınıf II

Treatment of Class II Malocclusion with Carriere Motion Appliance

Abstract

Class II malocclusion is a common problem in orthodontics. Skeletally Class II patients can be treated with functional appliances during the growth period. Orthognathic treatment and camouflage treatments can be applied in patients whose growth development has been completed. Generally, patients prefer camouflage treatment over orthognathic treatment because of its risks. In this case, camouflage treatment was applied with the Carriere Motion appliance to our patient who had passed the growth period. The effects of the appliance were examined clinically and radiographically.

Keywords

• Camouflage treatment
• Carriere Motion appliance
• class II
• distalization

References

1. 1. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Kim LH. Effect of timing on the outcomes of 1-phase nonextraction therapy of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(4):501-9.
2. 2. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(6):698.
3. 3. Pancherz H, Zieber K, Hoyer B. Cephalometric characteristics of Class II division 1 and Class II division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod. 1997;67(2):111-20.
4. 4. Kim YH. A comparative cephalometric study of Class II, Division 1 nonextraction and extraction cases. Angle Orthod. 1979;49(2):77- 84.
5. 5. McNamara Jr JA. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981;51(3):177-202.
6. 6. Proffit WR, White RP, Sarver DM. Contemporary treatment of dentofacial deformity: Mosby St. Louis; 2003.
7. 7. Kim-Berman H, McNamara Jr JA, Lints JP, McMullen C, Franchi L. Treatment effects of the Carriere® Motion 3D™ appliance for the correction of Class II malocclusion in adolescents. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(6):839-46.
8. 8. McNamara JA. Invisable retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1985;19:570-8.

9. 9. Sandifer CL, English JD, Colville CD, Gallerano RL, Akyalcin S. Treatment effects of the Carrière distalizer using lingual arch and full fixed appliances. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists. 2014;3(2):e49- e54.
10. 10. Hamilton C, Saltaji H, Preston C, FloresMir C, Tabbaa S. Adolescent patients' experience with the Carriere distalizer appliance. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2013;14(3):219-24.
11. 11. Carrière L. A new Class II distalizer. J Clin Orthod. 2004;38(224):31.
12. 12. Sorensen JV. A Comparative Study of the Carriere Motion Appliance and Class II Elastics: CBCT Analysis of Treatment Effects: Saint Louis University; 2019.
13. 13. Areepong D, Kim KB, Oliver DR, Ueno H. The Class II Carriere Motion appliance: A 3D CBCT evaluation of the effects on the dentition. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(4):491-9.
14. 14. Wilson BM. The Class II Carriere Motion Appliance: A 3D Comparison of the Shorty and Standard Carriere Appliances Using CBCT: Saint Louis University; 2018.