MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7078754050 · doi:10.14288/1.0449886

Maxillary molar distalization with the Carriere Motion Appliance : a comparison of two protocols

2025· article· en· W7078754050 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremolarMolarMaxillary canineMaxillaMaxillary first molarMalocclusionCephalometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Shorty Carriere Motion Appliance (CMA), bonded from the maxillary first premolar to first molar, in treating Class II malocclusions and to compare its treatment outcomes—including maxillary dental movements, anteroposterior correction, bite opening, and treatment duration—with those achieved using the Standard CMA, bonded from the maxillary canine to first molar. Methods: This retrospective cohort study assessed the outcomes of the Shorty and Standard CMA protocols in patients with Class II malocclusions undergoing comprehensive orthodontic treatment at two private practices in Vancouver, Canada, and at the University of British Columbia (UBC). A total of 48 adolescent and adult patients (ages 10–35) with Class II dental malocclusions and complete orthodontic records were included. Eighteen patients received the Carriere appliance bonded from the maxillary first premolar to the maxillary first molar (Shorty), while 30 patients received the appliance bonded from the maxillary canine to the maxillary first molar (Standard). Digital dental models were analyzed at two time points: T0 (initial) and T1 (post-CMA treatment). Superimpositions of T0 and T1 models were used to assess tooth movement across all three spatial planes. Data on occlusal plane changes and appointment characteristics were also collected. Results: Superimposition analysis revealed some statistically significant, but clinically insignificant differences between the Shorty and Standard groups in terms of maxillary tooth distalization, extrusion, buccal movement, rotation, occlusal plane rotation, or treatment duration. In addition, several notable side effects were encountered in some patients, including posterior crossbites and open bites. Conclusions: Both the Shorty and Standard CMA protocols produce comparable outcomes in the treatment of Class II malocclusions with regards to maxillary dental movements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→