Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study

Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the pre- and post-treatment values of patients treated with monoblock and twin-block appliances with the values of the skeletal Class I individuals. Material and Methods: The initial lateral cephalometric radiographs of the pubert...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Burçin Akan, Türkan Sezen Erhamza
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Faculty of Odontology 2021-06-01
Series:eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2021/2/e4/v12n2e4ht.htm
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849247689820078080
author Burçin Akan
Türkan Sezen Erhamza
author_facet Burçin Akan
Türkan Sezen Erhamza
author_sort Burçin Akan
collection DOAJ
description Objectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the pre- and post-treatment values of patients treated with monoblock and twin-block appliances with the values of the skeletal Class I individuals. Material and Methods: The initial lateral cephalometric radiographs of the pubertal untreated skeletal class I patients and cephalometric radiographs of 60 (30 monoblock, 30 twin-block) patients before and after the functional treatment were included in the study. Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue measurements were performed by a single researcher using Dolphin Imaging software version 11.95 (Dolphin Imaging, Chatsworth, CA, USA). Paired t-test was used for statistical evaluation and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In both monoblock and twin-block groups, there was a statistically significant increase in the measurements of the lower jaw and the vertical direction values (sella nasion B point (SNB), pogonion nasion perpendicular, Y-axis, sella nasion-gonion gnathion, palatal-mandibular angle, anterior facial height, mandibular length P < 0.05); however, in the Twin-block group, the lower jaw was found to be displaced more forward (change for twin-block; SNB = 2.35, Wits appraisal = -4.77). The most measurements of the twin-block treated group were similar to the control group. Conclusions: Both functional appliances have been identified to be useful in achieving treatment targets; however, with twin-block, results closer to ideal values are obtained.
format Article
id doaj-art-2ac762c211124a078e6d7db4f42396ca
institution Kabale University
issn 2029-283X
language English
publishDate 2021-06-01
publisher Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Faculty of Odontology
record_format Article
series eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research
spelling doaj-art-2ac762c211124a078e6d7db4f42396ca2025-08-20T03:58:10ZengLithuanian University of Health Sciences, Faculty of OdontologyeJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research2029-283X2021-06-01122e410.5037/jomr.2021.12204Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective StudyBurçin AkanTürkan Sezen ErhamzaObjectives: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the pre- and post-treatment values of patients treated with monoblock and twin-block appliances with the values of the skeletal Class I individuals. Material and Methods: The initial lateral cephalometric radiographs of the pubertal untreated skeletal class I patients and cephalometric radiographs of 60 (30 monoblock, 30 twin-block) patients before and after the functional treatment were included in the study. Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue measurements were performed by a single researcher using Dolphin Imaging software version 11.95 (Dolphin Imaging, Chatsworth, CA, USA). Paired t-test was used for statistical evaluation and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In both monoblock and twin-block groups, there was a statistically significant increase in the measurements of the lower jaw and the vertical direction values (sella nasion B point (SNB), pogonion nasion perpendicular, Y-axis, sella nasion-gonion gnathion, palatal-mandibular angle, anterior facial height, mandibular length P < 0.05); however, in the Twin-block group, the lower jaw was found to be displaced more forward (change for twin-block; SNB = 2.35, Wits appraisal = -4.77). The most measurements of the twin-block treated group were similar to the control group. Conclusions: Both functional appliances have been identified to be useful in achieving treatment targets; however, with twin-block, results closer to ideal values are obtained.https://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2021/2/e4/v12n2e4ht.htmgrowth and developmentmandibleorthodonticsretrognathiatreatment outcome
spellingShingle Burçin Akan
Türkan Sezen Erhamza
Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study
eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research
growth and development
mandible
orthodontics
retrognathia
treatment outcome
title Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study
title_full Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study
title_fullStr Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study
title_short Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study
title_sort does appliance design affect treatment outcomes of class ii division 1 malocclusion a two center retrospective study
topic growth and development
mandible
orthodontics
retrognathia
treatment outcome
url https://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2021/2/e4/v12n2e4ht.htm
work_keys_str_mv AT burcinakan doesappliancedesignaffecttreatmentoutcomesofclassiidivision1malocclusionatwocenterretrospectivestudy
AT turkansezenerhamza doesappliancedesignaffecttreatmentoutcomesofclassiidivision1malocclusionatwocenterretrospectivestudy