Literature DB >> 32637187

Comparison of Dentoskeletal Changes, Esthetic, and Functional Efficacy of Conventional and Novel Esthetic Twin Block Appliances among Class II Growing Patients: A Pilot Study.

Tulika Tripathi1, Navneet Singh1, Priyank Rai1, Prateek Gupta1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A twin block appliance used for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion suffers from undesirable dental effects and bulkiness. To overcome these limitations and the need for more esthetic appearance of this appliance, an esthetic twin block was designed and used in patients. This study aimed to compare dentoskeletal changes and esthetic and functional efficacy in patients treated with conventional and newly designed esthetic twin block (CTB and ETB) appliances using cephalometric measurements and a questionnaire.
METHODS: A pilot study with a 2-arm parallel-randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 24 patients (20 males, 4 females) in the age group of 11-13 years. Subjects were treated with CTB (group 1 [G1]: n=12; mean age=11.67±0.49 years) and ETB (group 2 [G2]: n=12; mean age=11.75±0.62 years) appliances. A modified Pancherz analysis was performed to evaluate skeletal and dental changes. The esthetic and functional efficacy was evaluated by a questionnaire using Likert scale. Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests were employed for intra and intergroup comparisons respectively (p<0.05).
RESULTS: In G1, a significant increase in lower incisor inclination was observed (p<0.05) whereas it was insignificant in G2. The changes were predominantly skeletal in G2 whereas they were both skeletal and dental in G1. ETB was found to be esthetically and functionally acceptable in all the patients while CTB patients were esthetically conscious, lacked confidence and had discomfort and difficulty in eating, chewing and speaking.
CONCLUSION: ETB had greater skeletal effects with a reduced tendency of lower incisor proclination, was esthetically acceptable, and functionally more comfortable than the CTB. © Copyright 2020 by Turkish Orthodontic Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Class II malocclusion; modified Pancherz analysis; twin block

Year:  2020        PMID: 32637187      PMCID: PMC7316480          DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Orthod        ISSN: 2148-9505


  27 in total

1.  Class II malocclusion treatment using combined Twin Block and fixed orthodontic appliances - A case report.

Authors:  Saud A Al-Anezi
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2010-10-08

2.  Effectiveness and acceptability of Essix and Begg retainers: a prospective study.

Authors:  Arun G Kumar; Anchal Bansal
Journal:  Aust Orthod J       Date:  2011-05

3.  A randomized clinical trial of two alternative designs of Twin-block appliance.

Authors:  Michael John Trenouth; Stephen Desmond
Journal:  J Orthod       Date:  2012-03

4.  Essix retainers: fabrication and supervision for permanent retention.

Authors:  J J Sheridan; W LeDoux; R McMinn
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  1993-01

5.  The effects of the Twin-block appliance treatment on the skeletal and dentolaveolar changes in Class II Division 1 malocclusion.

Authors:  Antanas Sidlauskas
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.430

6.  Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures.

Authors:  N Tümer; A S Gültan
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy.

Authors:  Aslı Baysal; Tancan Uysal
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  The Hybrid Aesthetic Functional (HAF) Appliance: A Less Visible Proposal for Functional Orthodontics.

Authors:  Christos Livas
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2013-07-17

9.  Effect of Treatment with Twin-Block Appliances on Body Posture in Class II Malocclusion Subjects: A Prospective Clinical Study.

Authors:  Dalia Smailienė; Aistė Intienė; Irma Dobradziejutė; Gintaras Kušleika
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-01-20

10.  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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: conventional technique vs aesthetic approach.

Authors:  Hasan Camcı; Farhad Salmanpour
Journal:  Eur Oral Res       Date:  2022-05-05
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.