Incremental versus maximum bite advancement during twin-block therapy: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Burnley General Hospital, Burnley, United Kingdom.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Impact Factor: 1.46). 12/2004; 126(5):583-8. DOI: 10.1016/S088954060400602X
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of incremental and maximum bite advancement during treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance in the permanent dentition. It was performed at 3 district general hospitals in the United Kingdom with 4 operators. Two hundred three patients, 10-14 years old, were randomized. Control patients had the initial bite taken edge-to-edge for appliance construction with a standard Twin-block. Experimental patients had 2 mm initial bite advancement and subsequent 2 mm advancements at 6 weekly intervals with a Twin-block appliance incorporating advancement screws. Data were collected at the start and the finish of Twin-block treatment. The use of incremental advancement of the Twin-block did not confer any advantages in terms of process and outcome of the treatment. However, patient compliance was influenced by operator and patient age. The duration of treatment was influenced by operator and initial overjet. Incremental bite advancement produced no advantages over maximum advancement.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our aim was to evaluate which anchorage system is better suited for both anteroposterior and vertical anchorage control of maxillary posterior teeth. Fifty-one subjects requiring maximum anchorage were divided into 2 groups according to maxillary posterior anchorage reinforcement: high-pull headgear, conventional transpalatal arch, and interarch elastics (n = 28); or modified transpalatal arch supported by 2 midpalatal miniscrews (n = 23). Bilateral maxillary first premolars were extracted in all patients. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were superimposed to compare skeletal and dental changes between the groups. (1) The miniscrew group had less mesial movement of the maxillary first molars (0.85 vs 3.63 mm) and greater maxillary incisor retraction (6.87 vs 4.50 mm) than did the headgear group with the same treatment duration. (2) The maxillary molars were significantly intruded in the miniscrew group (1.30 mm), whereas they were extruded in the headgear group (0.71 mm). In the miniscrew group, intrusion of the maxillary molars resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the mandibular plane angle (0.80°). Patients using high-pull headgear showed no significant decrease in these measurements. In both the anteroposterior and vertical directions, a modified transpalatal arch supported by 2 midpalatal miniscrews provided more stable anchorage.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 08/2013; 144(2):238-50. · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2-phase (a first phase with Twin Block therapy immediately followed by a second phase with fixed appliance therapy with nonextraction) and 1-phase (fixed appliance therapy with extraction of 4 first premolars) treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion. Two groups of successfully treated subjects, aged 10 to 14 years with class II division 1 malocclusion, were evaluated: 2-phase group (n = 70) and 1-phase group (n = 76). Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were traced manually and subjected to Student t test. In the 2-phase group, the forward positioning of the mandible (Pg-Olp) was less than that of the extraction group. The sagittal mandibular forward growth (Pg-Olp) was, on average, 2.39 ± 0.4 mm in the 2-phase group and 4.56 ± 2.51 mm in the 1-phase group (P = 0.008, P < 0.05). In the vertical plane, the increases in lower facial height and mandibular plane angle were greater in the 2-phase treatment. In the 2-phase group, the lower anterior teeth proclined (Ii-MP) by 7.3 ± 2 degrees, and in the extraction treatment group, it changed -4.1 ± 3.6 degrees. The 1-phase group contributed more sagittal orthopedic effects than did the 2-phase group. The proclination of the mandibular incisors in the 2-phase group might restrain the mandibular bone from growing enough and cause the backward and downward rotation of the mandible.
    The Journal of craniofacial surgery 09/2012; 23(5):1544-7. · 0.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Class II skeletal malocclusion and respiratory disorders owing to the obstruction of the upper airway at early growth stages have been correlated. The retro/micrognathism can be treated with functional appliances. However, the effects of an early functional orthopedic treatment on the airway dimensions have not been evaluated before the growth peak. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the changes in the airway dimensions of class II retrognathic children who received treatment with either Klammt or Bionator on a pre-pubertal stage. The sample consisted of 50 lateral cephalograms of class II retrognathic patients in a pre-puberal stage, before and after the use of a Klammt or Bionator II treatment for 1 year. The data were evaluated by Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney test, and significance was set at 5% (P < 0·05). When the measurements before and after treatment were compared, a statistically significant increase in the airway dimensions was found at the space where the adenoid tissue was located. The only airway dimensions that increased after treatment with functional appliances were the ones located at the nasopharynx. The adenoid tissue is still in the peak of growing at the ages of the subjects included in this study. However, the measurements along the nasopharynx increased when compared with the initial ones. Still, similar retrospective and prospective studies are needed at older stages.
    Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 02/2011; 38(8):588-94. · 2.34 Impact Factor


Available from
May 28, 2014