EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF POST TREATMENT SAGITTAL SKELETAL CHANGES AFTER TWIN BLOCK THERAPY ON CLASS II DIVISION 1 SUBJECTS

Dr. Latheef VP, Dr. Praveen S

Abstract


Twin Block appliances are largely used for the correction of skeletal class II malocclusions due to mandibular
retrognathism. Due to its patient comfort and ease, this appliance became the major tool for class II skeletal
correction. Literature review on this appliance shows mixed responses, some claiming that the results are good and stable while others just
put this as an appliance giving temporal acceleration in growth. Hence a study was designed to investigate the stability attained in antero
posterior skeletal correction attained with Twin Block appliance. 30 subjects who were treated for mandibular retrognathism were
identi􀃶ed. Average age group was 12.9[T1], 14.8 [T2] and 16.5 years [T3]. Pre-treatment, post treatment and a minimum of one year post
treatment cephalograms were collected and analyzed. Results obtained from the present study showed that the treatment outcomes that
were achieved immediately after twin block therapy was stable and that twin block appliance could be recommended in patients with
sufficient growth with mandibular retrognathism.


Keywords


Twin Block Appliance, Antero-posterior, Skeletal Changes, Post Treatment, Stability

Full Text:

PDF

References


Clark WJ. The Twin-block technique: a functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1988;93:1-18.

O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, et al. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop2003; 124(2):128–37

Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the Twin Block appliance. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2000;118:24-33

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 OrthodDentofacialOrthop2004; 126(1):7–15.

Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop1998; 113(1):104–10

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 OrthodDentofacialOrthop 2000; 117:54-9

Bishara SE. Longitudinal cephalometric standards from 5yrs. of age to adulthood. Am J OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1981; 79(1):35-44.

Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I--The hard tissues. Eur J Orthod1998; 20(5):501–16.

Toth LR, McNamara 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 OrthodDentofacialOrthop 1999; 116:597-609.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.