{"title":"Face Mask versus Carrière Motion<sup>®</sup> Class III Appliance: Comparison of Skeletal, Soft Tissue, and Dental Effects in Growing Individuals.","authors":"Melike Polat, Berza Yılmaz","doi":"10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2025.2025.98","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effects of the face mask and Carrière Motion<sup>®</sup> III appliance in growing patients with Class III malocclusion associated with maxillary retrognathia. The null hypothesis was that both appliances, applied after rapid maxillary expansion, would have similar effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes were evaluated using lateral cephalometric radiographs of 26 patients aged 6-9 years, taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). Cephalometric analyses were performed using Nemoceph<sup>®</sup> software (NEMOTEC, Madrid, Spain). Statistical analyses were carried out with MedCalc version 12.7.7 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium) with significance set at p<0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SNA°, A-NasionPerp, and Co-A increased significantly in both groups, with no significant intergroup difference. Co-Gn, Wits, ANB°, S-N, and the articular angle also increased significantly in both groups. SNB° decreased significantly only in the Carrière Motion<sup>®</sup> III group. Greater anterior maxillary rotation occurred with the face mask, while reduced rotation was observed with the Carrière Motion<sup>®</sup> III. Lower facial height decreased slightly but significantly in the Carrière Motion<sup>®</sup> III group, and increased in the face mask group. Overjet and molar relationship improved significantly in both groups. The UL-E line distance decreased in the face mask group, while the Carrière Motion<sup>®</sup> III showed no significant soft tissue changes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The null hypothesis was rejected. The two appliances had different effects; however, the Carrière Motion<sup>®</sup> III proved effective for early Class III treatment and may be considered an alternative, particularly for patients with social concerns about extraoral traction.</p>","PeriodicalId":37013,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"38 3","pages":"149-160"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12485644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2025.2025.98","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effects of the face mask and Carrière Motion® III appliance in growing patients with Class III malocclusion associated with maxillary retrognathia. The null hypothesis was that both appliances, applied after rapid maxillary expansion, would have similar effects.
Methods: Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes were evaluated using lateral cephalometric radiographs of 26 patients aged 6-9 years, taken before (T0) and after treatment (T1). Cephalometric analyses were performed using Nemoceph® software (NEMOTEC, Madrid, Spain). Statistical analyses were carried out with MedCalc version 12.7.7 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium) with significance set at p<0.05.
Results: SNA°, A-NasionPerp, and Co-A increased significantly in both groups, with no significant intergroup difference. Co-Gn, Wits, ANB°, S-N, and the articular angle also increased significantly in both groups. SNB° decreased significantly only in the Carrière Motion® III group. Greater anterior maxillary rotation occurred with the face mask, while reduced rotation was observed with the Carrière Motion® III. Lower facial height decreased slightly but significantly in the Carrière Motion® III group, and increased in the face mask group. Overjet and molar relationship improved significantly in both groups. The UL-E line distance decreased in the face mask group, while the Carrière Motion® III showed no significant soft tissue changes.
Conclusion: The null hypothesis was rejected. The two appliances had different effects; however, the Carrière Motion® III proved effective for early Class III treatment and may be considered an alternative, particularly for patients with social concerns about extraoral traction.