OBJECTIVES: To evaluate anchorage control using miniscrews vs an Essix appliance in treatment of Class II malocclusion by distalization using the Carrière Motion Appliance (CMA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four postpubertal female patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion were randomly distributed into two equal groups. CMA was bonded in both groups, and one group was treated with miniscrews as anchorage (12 patients, mean age = 18.0 years) while the other group was treated with an Essix appliance as anchorage (12 patients, mean age = 17.8 years). For each patient, two cone-beam computed tomographic scans were obtained: one preoperatively and another after completion of distalization. RESULTS: In the Essix appliance group, there was a statistically significant anterior movement (2.2 ± 1.43 mm) as well as proclination of the lower incisor (5.3° ± 4.0°), compared to a nonsignificant anterior movement (0.06 ± 1.45 mm) and proclination (0.86° ± 2.22°) in the miniscrew group. The amount of maxillary molar distalization was higher in the miniscrew group (2.57 ± 1.52 mm) than in the Essix appliance group (1.53 ± 1.11 mm); however, the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Miniscrews led to a decrease in the amount of anchorage loss in the mandibular incisors, both in terms of anterior movement and proclination.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate anchorage control using miniscrews vs an Essix appliance in treatment of Class II malocclusion by distalization using the Carrière Motion Appliance (CMA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four postpubertal female patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion were randomly distributed into two equal groups. CMA was bonded in both groups, and one group was treated with miniscrews as anchorage (12 patients, mean age = 18.0 years) while the other group was treated with an Essix appliance as anchorage (12 patients, mean age = 17.8 years). For each patient, two cone-beam computed tomographic scans were obtained: one preoperatively and another after completion of distalization. RESULTS: In the Essix appliance group, there was a statistically significant anterior movement (2.2 ± 1.43 mm) as well as proclination of the lower incisor (5.3° ± 4.0°), compared to a nonsignificant anterior movement (0.06 ± 1.45 mm) and proclination (0.86° ± 2.22°) in the miniscrew group. The amount of maxillary molar distalization was higher in the miniscrew group (2.57 ± 1.52 mm) than in the Essix appliance group (1.53 ± 1.11 mm); however, the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Miniscrews led to a decrease in the amount of anchorage loss in the mandibular incisors, both in terms of anterior movement and proclination.