Cephalometric Evaluation of the Pre- and Posttreatment Changes after the Correction of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion with Twin Block Appliance in Mixed Dentition
Citation Information :
Bimalrag B, Ephraim R, Ayilliath A, Punathil S, James J, Venugopal J. Cephalometric Evaluation of the Pre- and Posttreatment Changes after the Correction of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion with Twin Block Appliance in Mixed Dentition. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (7):783-789.
Aim and objective: To evaluate the pretreatment cephalometric records on the dental, skeletal, soft tissue, and incisor relationship with a twin block functional appliance in class II malocclusion patients in and around Mahe; evaluate the posttreatment cephalometric records on the dental, skeletal, soft tissue, and incisor relationship with a twin block functional appliance in class II malocclusion patients in these children; and to compare cephalometrically certain dental, skeletal, and soft tissue points in pretreatment and posttreatment cephalograms in them.
Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 20 class II patients in the mixed dentition period, who were treated with twin block therapy. Each had to meet the following criteria—(1) skeletal class II malocclusion with retrognathic mandible; (2) full cusp class II molar relationship; and (3) an angle of ANB of 50 or greater at the start of treatment. All patients wore the appliance 24 hours/day. The pretreatment cephalometric head films for the group were taken using standard cephalometric X-ray equipment. The length of time required to achieve a class I molar relationship was assessed. Appointments during the twin block phase were scheduled at intervals of 8 weeks. Lateral head films were obtained again at the posttreatment follow-up stage.
Results: There was a significant increase in effective mandibular length, ramus height, SNB, ANB, overjet, overbite, and I to NA (mm and degrees) after twin block therapy. The maxillary incisor position showed a decrease in its value by 4° in five cases.
Conclusion: Thus, in the present study, evidence of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes leading to the correction of class II division 1 malocclusion with the twin block functional appliance has been established. However, further studies with a longer period of follow-up and a larger sample are required to substantiate the results of the present investigation.
Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics, 5th edition. St Louis: Elsevier; 2013. pp. 490–491.
Bishara S. Textbook of Orthodontics. Philadelphia: Saunders Company; 2001. pp. 336–343, 218–220.
Clark WJ. The twin block technique. A functional orthopaedic appliance system. Am J Orthod 1988;93(1):1–18. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90188-6
Petrovic AG. Mechanisms and regulation of mandibular condylar growth. Acta Morphol Neerl Scand 1972;10(1):25–34.
Talass MF, Tollaae L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;91(5):385–394. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90391-x
Mills JR. The effect of functional appliances on the skeletal pattern. British J Orthod 1991;18(4):267–275. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.18.4.267
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
Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998;113(1):104–110. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70282-3
Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998;114(1):15–24. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70232-x
Morris DO, Illing HM, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of bass, bionator and twin block appliances. Eur J Orthod 1998;20(6):663–684. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.6.663
Toth LR, McNamara Jr JA. 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 Dentofac Orthop 1999;116(6):597–609. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70193-9
Vargervik K, Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment in class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1985;88(3):242–251. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9416(85)90219-2
Sharma AK, 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;30:218–226.
O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, 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 Dentofac Orthop 2003;124(3):234–243. DOI: 10.1016/S0889540603003524
O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 2: psychosocial effects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124(5):488–494. DOI: 10.1016/S0889540603006425
Šidlauskas 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.
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 Dentofac Orthop 2006;130(5):594–602. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.025
Lee RT, Kyi CS, Mack GJ, A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the twin block and dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues. Eur J Orthod 2007;29(3):272–282. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm004
Trenouth MJ, Desmond S. A randomized clinical trial of two alternative designs of twin-block appliance. J Orthod 2012;39(1):17–24. DOI: 10.1179/14653121226788
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 2014;37(2):170–176. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cju030
Tumer N, Gultan AS. Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin–block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(4):460–468. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70233-7
DeVinzenzo JP, Huffer RA, Winn MW. A study in human subjects using a new device designed to mimic the protrusive functional appliances used previously in monkeys. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;91:213–224.
Mollabashi V, Nezhad MB, Shahdoost M, et al. Cephalometric comparison of treatment with twin block appliance in skeletal class II div 1 patients with normal and vertical growth pattern. J Res Med Dent Sci 2018;6(2):506–513.
Varlik S.K, Gultan A, Tumer N. Comparison of the effects of twin block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:128–134.
Trenouth MJ. Cephalometric evaluation of the twin-block appliance in the treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000;117(1):54–59. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70248-4