The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

CLINICAL TRIAL STUDY

Comparison between Classic Twin-block and a Modified Clear Twin-block in Class II, Division 1 Malocclusions: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Mohammad K Soltani, Asieh Zohrei, Jalal Poorolajal

Keywords : Appliance, Functional orthodontic, Twin-block

Citation Information : Soltani MK, Zohrei A, Poorolajal J. Comparison between Classic Twin-block and a Modified Clear Twin-block in Class II, Division 1 Malocclusions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (12):1456-1463.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2449

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare dentoskeletal effects and patient\'s satisfaction with a modified twin-block (clear twinblock) and classic twin-block. Materials and methods: A total of 62 patients with skeletal class II malocclusion contributing to mandibular retrognathism with a minimum of 4 mm overjet, the FMA angle between 20 to 25 degree and being in stage 2 to 3 of cervical vertebral maturation participated in this study. Subjects were randomized in 1:1 ratio to classic and clear twin-block. Lateral cephalograms were taken at two stages—Pre- and post-treatment (when the overjet reduced to 1 to 0 mm). All the measurements were done with Dolphin software version 10.5. Four months after the start of the treatment the patients were asked to fill the questioners regarding their compliance from the appliances. Results: Both classic and clear twin-block groups showed mandibular advancement without statistically significant difference between them. However, SNB angle increased slightly more in clear group than the classic one. “Headgear effect” is not statistically noticeable in both groups. However, SNA angle decreased slightly more in Classic group. Increased in lower incisors proclination was happening in both groups, but in a clear group, this increase was significantly less. Overbite reduction could be seen in both groups with significantly more reduction in the classic group. Conclusion: Increase in lower incisors proclination was less in clear group than the classic one. Overbite reduction was more in the classic group than the classic one. Clinical significance: Clear twin-block is more beneficial in skeletal class II patients with proclined lower incisors and vertical growth pattern.


PDF Share
  1. Franchi L, Pavoni C, Faltin K Jr, McNamara JA Jr, Cozza P. Response to Long-term skeletal and dental effects and treatment timing for functional appliances in Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(5):933.
  2. Flores-Mir C, Major PW. Cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the twin block appliance in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(5):876-881.
  3. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118(2):159-170.
  4. Yaqoob O, Dibiase AT, Fleming PS, Cobourne MT. Use of the Clark Twin Block functional appliance with and without an upper labial bow: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(2):363-369.
  5. Trenouth MJ, Desmond S. A randomized clinical trial of two alternative designs of Twin-block appliance. J Orthod. 2012;39(1):17-24.
  6. Al-Anezi SA. Class II malocclusion treatment using combined Twin Block and fixed orthodontic appliances–A case report. Saudi Dent J. 2011;23(1):43-51.
  7. Hanoun A, Al-Jewair T, Tabbaa S, Allaymouni M, Preston C. A comparison of the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device and the Twin Block appliance in patients with class II malocclusions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2014; 6: 57-63.
  8. Baysal A, Uysal T. Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. European Journal of Orthodontics.2011; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjq187
  9. 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.
  10. Ehsani S, Nebbe B, Normando D, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(2):170-176.
  11. Macey-Dare LV, Nixon F. Functional appliances: mode of action and clinical use. SADJ. 1999 ;54(10):474-479.
  12. van der Plas MC, Janssen KI, Pandis N, Livas C. Twin Block appliance with acrylic capping does not have a significant inhibitory effect on lower incisor proclination. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(4):513-518.
  13. Skidmore KJ, Brook KJ, Thomson WM, Harding WJ. Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 ;129(2):230.
  14. Doll GM1, Zentner A, Klages U, Sergl HG. Relationship between patient discomfort, appliance acceptance and compliance in orthodontic therapy. J Orofac Orthop. 2000;61(6):398-413.
  15. Sergl H, Klages U, Pempera J.On the prediction of dentistevaluated pateint compliance in orthodontics. Eur J Orthod.1992;(14):463-468.
  16. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the Twin-block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:2433.
  17. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 ;114(1):15-24.
  18. Tümer N, Gültan S. Comparison of the effects of monobloc and Twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116:460-468.
  19. Jakobsson S-O, Paulin G. The influence of activator on skeletal growth in Angle Class II:1 cases. A roentgenocephalometric study. Eur J Orthod. 1990;12:174-184.
  20. Chadwick SM, Aird JC, Taylor PJS, Bearn DR. Functionalregulator treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23:495-505.
  21. Singh A, Chain S, Kulshrestha R, Gupta M, Passi D, Singh M. Comparison between conventional Twin block and a modified Essix twin block in adolescents with Class II malocclusion. International Journal of Dentistry Research. 2016;1(1):1-5.
  22. 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.
  23. O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: Dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 ;124(3):234-243.
  24. Kerr WJ, Ten Have TR, McNamara JA Jr. A comparison of skeletal and dental changesproduced by function regulators (FR-2 and FR-3). Eur J Orthod. 1989;11:235-242.
  25. Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1979;76:423-442.
  26. Perillo L, Johnston LE Jr, Ferro A. Permanence of skeletal changes after function regulator (FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;109:132-139.
  27. Hamilton SD, Sinclair PM, Hamilton RH. A cephalometric, tomographic, and dental cast evaluation of Fränkel therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;92:427-436.
  28. Sidlauskas A. The effects of the Twin-block appliance treatment on the skeletal and dentolaveolar changes in Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Medicina (Kaunas). 2005;41(5):392-400.
  29. El- Kattan E, El-Yazeed M, Aya E. A New Design of Twin Block Appliance for Treatment of Mandibular Deficiency in Mixed Dentition Stage. Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci.2012; 6(10): 701-707.
  30. Dauravu LM, Vannala V, Arafath M, Singaraju GS, Cherukuri SA, Mathew A. The assessment of sagittal changes with twin block appliance in patients with decelerating growth phase. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 ;8(12):81-84.
  31. Schaefer AT, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L, Baccetti T. A cephalometric comparison of treatment with the Twin-block and stainless steel crown Herbst appliances followed by fixed appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(1):7-15.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.