Literature DB >> 15821691

Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes.

Daljit S Gill1, Robert T Lee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective clinical trial was to compare the dentoskeletal effects of a conventional and a modified Twin-block (TB) appliance. The conventional TB appliance was constructed with a large, single-step advancement. The modified appliance, termed the mini-block (MB), was incrementally advanced, incorporated a maxillary incisor torquing spring, and had a reduced bite-block height. MATERIAL: Seventy patients were placed into age- and sex-matched pairs. Patients in each pair were allocated to opposing appliance groups. Active treatment lasted 9 months, irrespective of the final overjet attained, and final cephalometric records were taken at 12 months (+/-1 month). Both groups showed pretreatment equivalence for age, sex, overjet, and cephalometric variables.
RESULTS: The TB group experienced a significantly greater reduction in overjet (median, -8 mm; P = .02) compared with the MB group (median, -4 mm). This improved overjet reduction was associated with significantly greater forward movement of pogonion (median change, TB: 3.3 mm; MB: 2.1 mm; P = .02) and greater retroclination of the maxillary incisors (median change, TB: -5 degrees ; MB: -1.9 degrees ; P = .04). No significant intergroup difference was found for changes in total anterior facial height (median change, TB: 4.4 mm; MB: 4.3 mm) and mandibular incisor proclination (median change, TB: 1.3 degrees ; MB, 2.4 degrees ).
CONCLUSIONS: Progressive mandibular advancement was not associated with greater mandibular growth compared with single-step advancement. The maxillary incisor torquing spring seems to be effective at reducing maxillary incisor retroclination. Reduced bite activation in the MB group did not result in less mandibular incisor proclination. There was considerable individual variation in appliance effects within both groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15821691     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  9 in total

Review 1.  The use of functional appliances in contemporary orthodontic practice.

Authors:  A T DiBiase; M T Cobourne; R T Lee
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  Functional Jaw Orthopaedics for Management of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion.

Authors:  S S Chopra
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

3.  Therapeutic approach to Class II, Division 1 malocclusion with maxillary functional orthopedics.

Authors:  Aristeu Corrêa de Bittencourt Neto; Armando Yukio Saga; Ariel Adriano Reyes Pacheco; Orlando Tanaka
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug

4.  Treatment effects of twin-block and mandibular protraction appliance-IV in the correction of class II malocclusion.

Authors:  Ashok Kumar Jena; Ritu Duggal
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Use of the Clark Twin Block functional appliance with and without an upper labial bow: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Omar Yaqoob; Andrew T Dibiase; Padhraig S Fleming; Martyn T Cobourne
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 6.  Stepwise versus single-step mandibular advancement with functional appliance in treating class II patients : A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhixing Chen; Qun Chen; Xuemin Fan; Yun Li; Shuixue Mo
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 1.938

7.  Dentoskeletal effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Twin Block appliance in a Brazilian sample: a prospective study.

Authors:  Luciano Zilio Saikoski; Rodrigo Hermont Cançado; Fabrício Pinelli Valarelli; Karina Maria Salvatore de Freitas
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb

8.  Class II malocclusion occlusal severity description.

Authors:  Guilherme Janson; Renata Sathler; Thais Maria Freire Fernandes; Marcelo Zanda; Arnaldo Pinzan
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.698

9.  Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion.

Authors:  Stjepan Spalj; Kate Mroz Tranesen; Kari Birkeland; Visnja Katic; Andrej Pavlic; Vaska Vandevska-Radunovic
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-01-22       Impact factor: 3.411

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.