Muhammed Hilmi BÜYÜKÇAVUŞ
(Department of Orthodontics, Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Dentistry, Isparta, TÜRKİYE)
Burak KALE
(Department of Orthodontics, Antalya Bilim University, Faculty of Dentistry, Antalya, TÜRKİYE)
Yıl: 2021Cilt: 34Sayı: 3ISSN: 2528-9659 / 2148-9505Sayfa Aralığı: 155 - 162İngilizce

0 0
Skeletal and Dental Effects of Twin-Block Appliances in Patients Treated With or Without Expansion
Objective: To compare the skeletal and dental effects of twin-block appliances with or without expansion. Methods: From our archives, patients using twin-block appliances were selected. A total of 20 patients with expansion screws were classified as group 1 (10 male, 10 female; mean age 12.48 ± 1.38 years), and 18 patients without screws as group 2 (8 male, 10 female; mean age 12.81 ± 1.16 years). Cephalometric radiographs at pre-and post-treatment were used to evaluate skeletal and dentoalveolar parametric changes; study models and posteroanterior radiographs were used for transverse evaluation. The initial measurements and the treatment-related mean changes within the study groups were analyzed using the Student’s t-test. Results: Changes in maxillary skeletal measurements were not statistically significantly different between groups except for A-VRL (P > .05). Mandibular measurements showed an increase in SNB (º) and Co-Gn distance in both groups. However, these changes were similar for both groups (P > .05). The maxillary measurements showed that incisors were proclined in the expansion group and retroclined in the non-expansion group. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of changes in the skeletal transversal measurements (P > .05). On the study models, the changes in maxillary intercanine and intermolar widths, and in arch length differed to a statistically significant degree between groups (P < .05). Conclusion: The skeletal effects of 2 different types of twin-block appliances in the transversal direction were similar; it was deter mined that dental expansion was obtained in the maxilla by adding screws to the twin-block appliances.
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • 1. Clark WJ. The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93(1):1-18. [CrossRef]
  • 2. Clark WJ. Twin-Block Functional Therapy. London: Mosby-Wolfe; 1995.
  • 3. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA, Jr. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(5):599.e1-599 e12. [CrossRef]
  • 4. Pancherz H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85(2):125-134. [CrossRef].
  • 5. Toth LR, McNamara JA, Jr. Treatment effects produced by the twinblock appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116(6):597-609. [CrossRef]
  • 6. Hägglund P, Segerdal S, Forsberg CM. The integrated Herbst appliance–treatment effects in a group of adolescent males with Class II malocclusions compared with growth changes in an untreated control group. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(2):120-127. [CrossRef]
  • 7. Altenburger E, Ingervall B. The initial effects of the treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusions with the van Beek activator compared with the effects of the Herren activator and an activator-headgear combination. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(4):389-397. [CrossRef]
  • 8. Parekh J, Counihan K, Fleming PS, Pandis N, Sharma PK. Effectiveness of part-time vs full-time wear protocols of Twin-block appliance on dental and skeletal changes: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019;155(2):165-172 [CrossRef]
  • 9. Parkin NA, McKeown HF, Sandler PJ. Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(6):572-577. [CrossRef]
  • 10. Pandis N. Sample calculations for comparison of 2 means. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141(4):519-521. [CrossRef]
  • 11. Sayin MO, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(5):635-639. [CrossRef]
  • 12. Gelgör IE, Karaman AI, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central Anatolia. Eur J Dent. 2007;1(3):125-131. [CrossRef]
  • 13. Harvold EP, Vargervik K. Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. Am J Orthod. 1971;60(5):478-490. [CrossRef].
  • 14. Freitas MR, Santos MA, Freitas KM et al. Cephalometric characterization of skeletal Class II, division 1 malocclusion in white Brazilian subjects. J Appl Oral Sci. 2005;13(2):198-203. [CrossRef]
  • 15. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Büyükerkmen A, Sari Z. The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of Class II division 1 patients. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(1):87-93. [CrossRef]
  • 16. Baltromejus S, Ruf S, Pancherz H. Effective temporomandibular joint growth and chin position changes: activator versus Herbst treatment. A cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24(6):627-637. [CrossRef]
  • 17. Banks P, Wright J, O'Brien K. Incremental versus maximum bite advancement during twin-block therapy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(5):583-588. [CrossRef]
  • 18. Arat ZM, Türkkahraman H, English JD, Gallerano RL, Boley JC. Longitudinal growth changes of the cranial base from puberty to adulthood. A comparison of different superimposition methods. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):537-544. [CrossRef]
  • 19. Hägg U, Rabie AB, Bendeus M et al. Condylar growth and mandibular positioning with stepwise vs maximum advancement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):525-536. [CrossRef]
  • 20. 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. [CrossRef]
  • 21. Tümer N, Gültan 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. [CrossRef]
  • 22. Cozza P, De Toffol L, Colagrossi S. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes during activator therapy. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(3):293-302. [CrossRef]
  • 23. 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. [CrossRef]
  • 24. Türkkahraman H, Sayin MO. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28(1):27-34. [CrossRef]
  • 25. Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger JL, Chermak DS et al. Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance on patients with Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(3):286-295. [CrossRef]
  • 26. Flores-Mir C, Major PW. A systematic review of cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the Activator and bionator appliances in Class II division 1 subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28(6):586- 593. [CrossRef]
  • 27. Papadopoulos MA. Meta-analyses and orthodontic evidence-based clinical practice in the 21st century. Open Dent J. 2010;4:92-123. [CrossRef

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.