The Carriere Motion Appliance in Class II Correction

Dr. Jim McNamara has used a wide variety of appliances, both fixed and removable, in the management of patients with Class II occlusal relationships. His current focus is a prospective clinical study of the Carriere Motion appliance carried out in conjunction with developer of this treatment approach, Dr. Luis Carriere. The results of this study as well as the specific protocol used will be described in detail.

Learning Objectives:

Define how the Carriere Motion appliance can be used in the treatment of Class II Malocclusion.
Manage the skeletal and dental treatment effects produced by the appliance as observed cephalometrically.
Analyze the details of the Carriere Motion treatment protocol.

Simple and Innovative Method in Class II Correction

In treatment of class II cases the palatal plate is a highly effective appliance, which can be easily placed and managed by orthodontists. Scientific evidence demonstrated that the application of Modified C-Palatal Plate (MCPP) resulted in successful treatment outcomes by efficient molar distalization with a near-bodily movement. A creative and innovative approach for Class II correction using MCPP will be discussed including biomechanics and practical guidelines. Clinical pearls and a simple management of MCPP including step-by-step placement procedures with use of a jig will be presented.

Learning Objectives:

Recognize the indications of the modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) in class II corrections.
Illustrate the step-by-step chair-side procedures required to incorporate the MCPP in orthodontic practices.
Recognize the pros and cons of the MCPP and manage maxillary distalization aided by the MCPP with clinical excellence.

Gimcracks, Geegaws and Gimmicks: Distinctions in Search of a Difference

In today’s orthodontic marketplace, a wide variety of Class II treatments jostle for attention, each promising new, improved, and more salable techniques. A pledge to “work with growth” is a common, assuasive rationale. Unfortunately, both for the clinician and the patient, our attempts to grow bone have come to naught and now boil down to making use of whatever the individual pattern of mandibular growth has in store. To this end, all treatments must in some way control the movement of teeth. Therein lies the rub. The canard that people like faces that are stuffed full of teeth commonly leads to an over-reliance on non-extraction treatments and the various “advances” that have served to ratchet the dentition ever more forward. Just as all roads are said to lead to Rome; all roads that lead to well treated Class II malocclusions (that is, results achieved without “blowing” mandibular anchorage) must take a variety of routes to and through the upper dentition. Fixed or functional, early or late, the details are surprisingly similar.

Learning Objectives:

Recognize the similarity among the various contemporary Class II treatments.
Identify treatments whose advertised mode of action is at odds with common sense and contemporary concepts of craniofacial biology.
Distinguish between practice management decisions and biological imperatives encountered in planning the treatment of Class II malocclusions.

Dr. James A. McNamara DDS, MS, PhD

Appearances