Evaluating the Effects of Carriere Motion Appliance and Twin Block Appliances in Class II Correction-A Retrospective Study.

This retrospective study compared Class II orthodontic non-extraction treatment using Carriere Motion Appliance (CMA) and Twin Block (TB) appliances. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Both 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.

Orthodontists and lay people rate masculine soft tissue profiles similarly but feminine soft tissue profiles differently.

Objective: An esthetic facial soft tissue profile is an important objective of contemporary orthodontics. The extent to which clinicians and the public agree on profiles that are esthetically acceptable versus profiles recommended for treatment is unclear. Thus, this work examined the profile considered esthetic by laypeople and general dental practitioners compared to orthodontists.
Method and materials: An Israeli balanced male-female group comprising 284 participants (orthodontists [n = 86], general dental practitioners [n = 64], laypeople [n = 134]) rated the attractiveness of five standardized masculine and feminine profiles presented in standardized silhouettes ranging from concave to convex.
Results: Laypeople see no esthetic difference between masculine and feminine profiles, and prefer moderately concave over moderately convex and severely concave over severely convex profiles. While all raters preferred the straight silhouettes, orthodontists rated them significantly higher than general dental practitioners (P < .0001) or laypeople (P < .020). Similar to the general population, orthodontists gave higher ratings to concave profiles for masculine profiles, but significantly lower ratings for feminine profiles. The severely convex male profile was the least attractive to clinicians and laypeople. There was a significant difference in the attractiveness of the female profile between practitioners (P < .001 and P < .02 for general dental practitioners and orthodontists, respectively) and laypeople.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that orthodontic training and clinical adherence to strict beauty norms results in more critical judgment of female attractiveness, which may affect orthodontic treatment. They indicate trends that reflect changes in recent decades in the public perception of facial beauty, which may affect patient expectations of treatment outcomes.