The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Twin Block Appliance and Fixed Orthodontic Appliance in Early Class II Malocclusion Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Eman Saad Radwan, Ahmed Maher, Mona A Montasser

Keywords : Mandibular retrusion, Skeletal class II, Twin block

Citation Information : Radwan ES, Maher A, Montasser MA. Comparative Evaluation of Twin Block Appliance and Fixed Orthodontic Appliance in Early Class II Malocclusion Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (11):1111-1121.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3426

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-03-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aims: To compare skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes between Twin block and early fixed orthodontic appliance for class II division 1 malocclusion treatment through a randomized controlled trial. Materials and methods: Sample and randomization: This study was a randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio in which 40 patients were divided equally into two groups: control and experimental; each group had an equal number of boys and girls. Randomization was achieved using random blocks of 20 patients with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes. Blinding was only applicable for data analysis of radiographic measurements. Intervention: Twin block appliance was used in the experimental group for 1 year. However, control group was treated with fixed appliance. Inclusion criteria: Skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion with mandibular retrognathism; cephalometric angular measurements: SNA ≥ 82, SNB ≤ 78, ANB ≥ 4; overjet ≥6 mm; and patient in circumpubertal stage cervical vertebral maturation (CVM2 and CVM3). Parameters for evaluation: Cephalometric skeletal, dental, and soft tissue angular and linear measurements were used for evaluation. Results: SNB increased remarkably by 4° in the Twin block group, but only by 0.68 in the control group. There was a significant decrease in vertical dimensions (SN-GoGn) in the Twin block group compared to control group (p = 0.002). Significant enhancement in the facial profile of the patients was observed. Conclusions: The Twin block appliance induced significant skeletal and dental changes. These changes were more obvious relative to the slight changes induced by natural growth. Clinical significance: Early treatment of Class II due to mandibular retrusion with Twin block functional appliance is recommended due to its favourable skeletal effect. Early treatment with fixed appliance affects mainly the dentoalveolar component. Long term follow-up is needed for further insights.

  1. Proffit WR, Fields H Jr, Moray L. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1998;13(2):97–106. PMID: 9743642.
  2. Sultan AM, Halboub E, Fayed MS, et al. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 2018;23(6):40e1–40e10. DOI: 10.1590/
  3. Barnett GA, Higgins DW, Major PW, et al. Immediate skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown- or banded type Herbst appliance on class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2008;78(2):361–369. DOI: 10.2319/031107-123.1.
  4. Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L. An introduction to orthodontics. Oxford University Press; 2019.
  5. Tulloch JFC, Medland W, Tuncay OC. Methods used to evaluate growth modification in class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98(4):340–347. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406 (05)81491-X.
  6. Jakobsson SO. Cephalometric evaluation of treatment effect on class II, division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1967;53(6):446–457. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(67)90005-x.
  7. Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P. Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104(2):153–161. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81005-4.
  8. Johnston LE. Functional appliances: a mortgage on mandibular position. Aust Orthod J 1996;14(3):154–157. PMID: 9528414.
  9. Johnston L. Growing jaws for fun and profit: a modest proposal. Craniofac Growth Series 1999;35:63–86.
  10. DeVincenzo JP. Changes in mandibular length before, during, and after successful orthopedic correction of class II malocclusions, using a functional appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99(3):241–257. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70006-I.
  11. O'Brien, K. Is early treatment for class II malocclusion effective? Results from a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129(4):S64–S65. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.016.
  12. Bennett JC. Orthodontic management of uncrowded class II division 1 malocclusion in children: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006. ISBN: 978-0-7234-3426-9.
  13. McNamara J, Brudon W, Kokich VG. Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. Needham Press Inc; 2001. ISBN-13: 9780963502230.
  14. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation [CVM] method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod 2002;72(4):316–323. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0316:AIVOTC>2.0.CO;2.
  15. Clark W, Clark WJ. Twin block functional therapy. JP Medical Ltd; 2014.
  16. Ehsani S, Nebbe B, Normando D, et al. Short-term treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2015;37(2):170–176. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cju030.
  17. Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(5):594–602. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.025.
  18. Li P, Feng J, Shen G, et al. Severe class II division 1 malocclusion in an adolescent patient, treated with a novel sagittal-guidance twin-block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150(1):153–166. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.046.
  19. Clark W. Design and management of twin blocks: reflections after 30 years of clinical use. J Orthod 2010;37(3):209–216. DOI: 10.1179/14653121043110.
  20. Pancherz H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85(2):125–134. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90004-6.
  21. Lim C-Y, Junyong In. Randomization in clinical studies. Korean J Anesthesiol 2019;72(3):221–232. DOI: 10.4097/kja.19049.
  22. Montasser MA, Viana G, Evans CA. Racial and sex differences in timing of the cervical vertebrae maturation stages. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151(4):744–749. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.019.
  23. Clark W. The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93(1):1–18. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90188-6.
  24. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113(1): 104–110. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70282-3.
  25. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118(1):24–33. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2000.104902.
  26. Trenouth M. Proportional changes in cephalometric distances during twin block appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 2002;24(5):485–491. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/24.5.485.
  27. Trenouth M. Cephalometric evaluation of the twin-block appliance in the treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117(1):54–59. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70248-4.
  28. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of bass, bionator and twin block appliances. Part I: the hard tissues. Eur J Orthod 1998;20(5):501–516. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.5.501.
  29. Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(6):597–609. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70193-9.
  30. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, et al. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129(5):599 e1–e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.010.
  31. Elfeky HY, Fayed MS, Alhammadi MS, et al. Three-dimensional skeletal, dentoalveolar and temporomandibular joint changes produced by twin block functional appliance. J Orofac Orthop 2018;79(4):245–258. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-018-0137-1.
  32. Alhammadi MS, Elfeky HY, Fayed MS, et al. Three-dimensional skeletal and pharyngeal airway changes following therapy with functional appliances in growing skeletal class II malocclusion patients: a controlled trial. J Orofac Orthop 2019;80(5):254–265. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-019-00185-7.
  33. Khoja A, Fida M, Shaikh A. Cephalometric evaluation of the effects of the twin block appliance in subjects with class II, division 1 malocclusion amongst different cervical vertebral maturation stages. Dental Press J Orthod 2016;21(3):73–84. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.3.073-084.oar.
  34. Parekh J, Counihan K, Fleming PS, et al. Effectiveness of part-time vs full-time wear protocols of twin-block appliance on dental and skeletal changes: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;155(2):165–172. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.07.016.
  35. Bhattacharya A, Bhatia A, Patel D, et al. Evaluation of relationship between cranial base angle and maxillofacial morphology in Indian population: a cephalometric study. J Orthod Sci 2014;3(3):74–80. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.137691.
  36. Anderson D, Popovich F. Relation of cranial base flexure to cranial form and mandibular position. Am J Phys Anthropol 1983;61(2):181–187. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330610206.
  37. Kerr WJS, Adams CP. Cranial base and jaw relationship. Am J Phys Anthropol 1988;77(2):213–220. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330770209.
  38. Almeida KCMd, Raveli TB, Vieira CIV, et al. Influence of the cranial base flexion on class I, II and III malocclusions: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 2017;22(5):56–66. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.22.5.056-066.oar.
  39. Qadir M. Cephalometric assessment of twin block appliance in treatment of class II div 1 malocclusion. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2017;3(4):191–195.
  40. Abdelkarim A. A cone beam CT evaluation of oropharyngeal airway space and its relationship to mandibular position and dentocraniofacial morphology. J World Fed Orthod 2012;1(2): e55–e59. DOI:
  41. Mattila K, Altonen M, Haavikko K. Determination of the gonial angle from the orthopantomogram. Angle Orthod 1977;47(2):107–110. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1977)047<0107:DOTGAF>2.0.CO;2.
  42. Sharma A, Sachdev V, Singla A, et al. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes concurrent to use of twin block appliance in class II division I cases with a deficient mandible: a cephalometric study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30(3):218–226. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.105014.
  43. Shahamfar M, Atashi MHA, Azima N. Soft tissue esthetic changes following a modified twin block appliance therapy: a prospective study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(3):255–260. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1759.
  44. Sumitra M, Tandur AP. Assessment of soft tissue profile following twin block appliance therapy - a cephalometric study. J Ind Orthod Soc 2006;40(2):80–88. DOI:
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.