Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 23, 2026

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
Published on: August 25, 2023
Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model
Kaifeng Yin1,2, Eugene Han3, Jing Guo4
1Department of Orthodontics, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry at University of Southern California, 925 W 34th St, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. kyin.ortho@gmail.com.
Background:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the treatment effectiveness of Carriere Distalizer in comparison to Class II intermaxillary elastics and Forsus.
Methods:
Three groups of patients treated with Class II intermaxillary elastics (n = 18), Carriere Distalizer (n = 18), and Forsus appliance (n = 18) were collected from three private orthodontic practices. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) 10-14 years old of start age with permanent dentition, (2) no history of previous orthodontic treatment, (3) complete pre- and post-treatment records, (4) dental Class II division 1 (end-to-end or more), (5) no pre-treatment transverse discrepancy, (6) non-extraction treatment plan, and (7) Class I post-treatment occlusal relationship. The data consisted of cephalometric and study model measurements from pre- and post-treatment records and treatment time. Two-tail Student t test was used to analyze the differences in cephalometric changes and dental corrections between Carriere Distalizer group and Class II elastics/Forsus group.
Results:
All three groups of patients showed no differences in the age of treatment initiation, pre-treatment cephalometric measurements and discrepancy index (DI). The time of Class II correction for Carriere Distalizer was significantly shorter than that for Class II elastics; there was no difference in the length of Class II correction between Carriere Distalizer and Forsus groups. The amount of Class II correction (canine/molar relationship) was significantly lower for Carriere Distalizer when compared with Forsus appliance. Carriere Distalizer, similarly to Class II elastics, did not induce any statistically significant correction in skeletal component (ANB and Wits appraisal).
Conclusions:
There is no clinically significant skeletal correction induced by Carriere Distalizer in growing patients. Carriere Distalizer can be applied to treatment of mild to moderate Class II dental malocclusion over 6 months on average, although the total treatment time may be prolonged due to various side effects. Overall, the Carriere Distalizer appears to be no more effective or efficient than alternatives in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
More Related Videos
10:23Author Spotlight: Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmark Annotation Demonstration on Human Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans
Published on: September 8, 2023
07:10Author Spotlight: Expression and Purification of Human Solute Carrier Transporters Using Codon-Optimized Genes
Published on: September 29, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Electron Carriers
Over the many stages of cellular respiration, glucose breaks down into carbon dioxide and water. Electron carriers pick up electrons lost by glucose in these reactions, temporarily storing and releasing them into the electron...
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Carrier Transport
Drift Current:
The drift of charge carriers is started by an external electric field (E). Charged particles, such as electrons and holes, experience an acceleration between collisions with lattice atoms. For electrons, this results in a drift velocity (vd) given by:
The Sense of Self: Reflected Self-Appraisal and Social Comparison
Drug Classes and Categories
Antibody Structure and Classes
The basic structure of an antibody consists of four protein chains: two identical heavy chains and two identical light chains. These chains are held together by disulfide bonds and other non-covalent interactions, forming a Y-shaped structure.