TWIN-BLOCK APPLIANCE

Abstract

Class II maloclussion is one of the most common anomaly in orthodontics. Generally functional orthopedic treatment is applied to the patients with Class II Div 1 malocclusion that characterized by mandibular deficiency during growth and development period. One of the commonly used removable functional appliance is Twin-block appliance that include upper and lower two acrylic platesand improve forward movement of mandible. Twin-block is commonly preferred rather than other functional appliances, because of the advantages as to be small, the acrylic part is not visible in anterior and minimally affect speech. Twin-block treatment have many skeletal, dental and soft tissue effects. The purpose of this review was to observe the effects of Twin-blok appliance on the craniofacial structures, comparison of treatment effect with other functional appliances and Twin-blok appliance modifications

Keywords

• Twin-block, functional ortopedic treatment, Class II

TWİN-BLOK APAREYİ

Abstract

Ortodontide Sınıf II maloklüzyonlar en sık karşılaşılan anomalilerin başında gelmektedir. Büyüme ve gelişim döneminde; mandibular yetersizlikle karakterize Sınıf II Div. 1 maloklüzyonu olan hastalarda fonksiyonel ortopedik tedaviler sıklıkla uygulanmaktadır. Yaygın olarak kullanılan hareketli fonksiyonel apareylerden biri olan Twin-blok apareyi; alt ve üst çene olmak üzere iki ayrı akrilik plak ile beraber mandibulanın ileri hareketini sağlamaktadır. Diğer fonksiyonel apareylere göre; daha küçük olması, ön bölgede görünür akrilik kısmının olmaması ve konuşmayı minimal olarak etkilemesi vb. avantajlarından dolayı sıklıkla tercih edilmektedir. Twin-blok tedavisinin birçok iskeletsel, dişsel ve yumuşak doku etkileri görülmektedir. Bu derlemenin amacı; Twin-blok apareyinin kraniyofasiyal yapılar üzerine olan etkilerini incelemek, diğer fonksiyonel apareyler ile tedavi etkinliğini karşılaştırmak ve apareyin modifikasyonları hakkında bilgi sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Twin-blok, Fonksiyonel tedavi,Sınıf II

References

1. Dağsuyu İM. Sınıf II Bölüm 1 maloklüzyonlu bireylerde fonksiyonel ortopedik tedavi etkilerinin aksiyografik incelenmesi. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 2011;21:196- 212. yöntemlerle
2. Özel N AA. Sınıf II maloklüzyonların tedavisinde kullanılan fonksiyonel ortopedik apareyler. Smyrna Tıp Dergisi 2011:48-52.
3. Moyers RE, Riolo ML, Guire KE, Wainright RL, Bookstein FL. Differential diagnosis of class II malocclusions. Part 1. Facial types associated with class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1980;78:477- 94.
4. A GA. Sınıf II Maloklüzyonların Tedavisinde Molar Distalizasyonu. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2006;27:97- 105.
5. Kiliaridis S, Mills CM, Antonarakis GS. Masseter muscle thickness as a predictive variable in treatment outcome of the twin-block appliance and masseteric thickness changes during treatment. Orthod Craniofac Res 2010;13:203-13.
6. Profit WR, Fields, H. and Sarver, D. Contemporary Orthodontics.5 ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier: 2013 p: 490-8
7. Clark WJ. The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:1-18.
8. Ehsani S, Nebbe B, Normando D, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2014.

9. Flores-Mir C, Major PW. Cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the twin block appliance in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2006;76:876-81.
10. McNamara JA, Jr. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:597-609.
11. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:15-24.
12. Baysal A, Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:164-72.
13. Christine M. Mills D, MS, and Kara J. McCulloch,DMD,MSD. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the Twin Block appliance 2000. 14. Trenouth MJ.
14. Proportional changes in
15. cephalometric distances during Twin Block
16. appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:485-91.
17. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA, Jr. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:159-70.
18. Gill DS, Lee RT. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini- block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:465-72; quiz 517.
19. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:104-10.
20. Sidlauskas A. Clinical effectiveness of the Twin block appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Stomatologija 2005;7:7- 10.
21. Baysal A, Uysal T. Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:71-81.
22. Luo Y, Fang G. [Effect of Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II and division I malocclusion: a cephalometric study in 12 patients]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2005;14:90- 3.
23. Morris DO, Illing HM, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part II--The soft tissues. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:663-84.
24. Lee APSaRT. Assessed facial normality after Twin Block therapy. European Journal of Orthodontics 2010.
25. Zhang C, He H, Ngan P. Effects of twin block appliance on obstructive sleep apnea in children: a preliminary study. Sleep Breath 2013;17:1309-14.
26. 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;116:460-8.
27. Toth LR, McNamara JA, Jr. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:597-609.
28. 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:594-602.
29. 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;20:501-16.
30. Siara-Olds NJ, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger J, Bayirli B. Long-term dentoskeletal changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA functional appliances. Angle Orthod 2010;80:18- 29.
31. 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;126:7-15.
32. Pancherz H. The effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial adaptations to treatment with the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 1997;3:232-43.
33. Tarvade SM, Chaudhari CV, Daokar SG, Biday SS, Handa Ramkrishna Comparison of Changes Seen in Class II Cases Treated by Twin Block and Forsus. J Int Oral Health 2014;6:27-31. AS. Dentoskeletal
34. Hanoun A, Al-Jewair TS, Tabbaa S, Allaymouni MA, Preston CB. A comparison of the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device and the Twin Block appliance in patients with class II malocclusions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2014;6:57-63.
35. Mahamad IK, Neela PK, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. A comparision of Twin-block and Forsus (FRD) functional appliance--a cephalometric study. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2012; 23:49-58.
36. Caldwell S, Cook P. Predicting the outcome of twin block functional appliance treatment: a prospective study. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:533-9.
37. Pancherz H. The mandibular plane angle in activator treatment. Angle Orthod 1979;49:11-20.
38. Bondevik O. How effective is the combined activator-headgear treatment? Eur J Orthod 1991;13:482-5.
39. Gianelly AA. One-phase versus two-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:556-9.
40. Dyer FM, McKeown HF, Sandler PJ. The modified twin block appliance in the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions. J Orthod 2001;28:271-80.
41. Yaqoob O, Dibiase AT, Fleming PS, Cobourne MT. Use of the Clark Twin Block functional appliance with and without an upper labial bow: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 2012;82:363-9.
42. Carmichael GJ, Banks PA, Chadwick SM. A modification to enable controlled progressive advancement of the Twin Block appliance. Br J Orthod 1999;26:9-13.
43. Brennan JA, Littlewood SJ. Twin-block re- activation. J Orthod 2006;33:3-6.