Objectives To compare treatment effects of the standard and shorty Class II Carriere Motion appliances (CMAs) on adolescent patients. Materials and Methods Fifty adolescents with Class II malocclusion formed group 1, who were treated with shorty CMA (n = 25, 12.66 ± 1.05 years), and age- and sex–matched group 2, who were treated with standard CMA (n = 25, 12.73 ± 1.07 years). Treatment effects were analyzed by tracing with Invivo software to compare pretreatment (T1) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images with post-CMA (T2) CBCT images. A total of 23 measurements were compared within and between groups. Results In groups 1 and 2, maxillary first molars showed significant distal movement from T1 to T2 (1.83 ± 2.11 mm and 2.14 ± 1.34 mm, respectively), with distal tipping and rotation in group 1 (6.52° ± 3.99° and 3.15° ± 7.52°, respectively) but only distal tipping (7.03° ± 3.45°) in group 2. Similarly, in both groups, the maxillary first premolars experienced significant distal movement with distal tipping but no significant rotation. In group 1, maxillary canines did not undergo significant distal movement. In both groups 1 and 2, mandibular first molars experienced significant mesial movement (1.85 ± 1.88 mm and 2.44 ± 2.02 mm, respectively). Group 1 showed statistically significantly less reduction in overjet and less canine distal movement with less distal tipping than group 2 (α < .05). Conclusions The shorty CMA achieved Class II correction similarly to the standard CMA, with less change in overjet and distal tipping movement of the maxillary canines.

No abstract

Objectives To compare relapse and failure rates of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and standard fixed retainers. Materials and Methods This single-center, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial included 46 patients who completed active orthodontic treatment and complied with retention visits. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups: CAD/CAM group with multistranded stainless steel wires (CAD/CAM, n = 16), Lab group with the same multistranded wires (lab, n = 16), and control group with stainless steel Ortho-FlexTech wires (traditional, n = 14). Intraoral scans were obtained at placement of fixed retainers (T1), 3-month visit (T2), and 6-month visit (T3) and measured for intercanine width and Little's Irregularity Index. Failures were recorded. Results The CAD/CAM group experienced less intercanine width decrease than the traditional group at 3 months (mean difference, 0.83 ± 0.16 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–1.22; P < .001) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.23 ± 0.40 mm; 95% CI, 0.19–2.27; P < .05). The CAD/CAM group experienced less increase in Little's Irregularity Index compared with the lab group within 3 months (mean difference, 0.81 ± 0.27 mm; 95% CI, 0.12–1.49; P < .05). Failures from greatest to least were experienced by the lab group (43.8%), the CAD/CAM group (25%), and the traditional group (14.3%). Conclusions Within 6 months of bonding fixed retainers, CAD/CAM fixed retainers showed less relapse than lab-based and traditional chairside retainers and less failures than lab-based retainers.

No abstract

The American Board of Orthodontics has developed tools to help examinees select patients to be used for the Board examination. The Case Management Form can be used to evaluate aspects of a patient's treatment that cannot be measured by other tools. The Case Management Form is a structured treatment-neutral assessment of orthodontic objectives and outcomes associated with a patient's treatment. Despite the availability of this form, examiners continue to see problems, including lack of attention to finishing details, inappropriate treatment objectives, excessive proclination of mandibular incisors due to treatment mechanics, excessive expansion of mandibular intercanine width, closing skeletal open bite with extrusion of anterior teeth leading to excessive gingival display, and failure to recognize the importance of controlling the eruption or extrusion of molars during treatment. In addition, some examinees exhibit a lack of understanding of proper cephalometric tracing and superimposition techniques, which lead to improper interpretation of cephalometric data and treatment outcomes.