Does Acrylic Capping Modification Twin Block Inhibit The Proclination of Lower Anterior Teeth

Year 2018, , 15 - 20, 01.01.2018

Burçin Akan , Gökçenur Gökçe

https://doi.org/10.21306/jids.2018.1.37

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of this research was to examine and compare the effects of two different designs of the Twin-Block TWB appliance on the position and angle of the lower anterior teeth.Material and Method: A total of 30 individuals during the peak pubertal period with Class II Division 1 malocclusions were included in our study. Individuals were randomly divided into 2 groups to apply the TWB appliance containing acrylic or clasps on the lower anterior teeth. The analysis of cephalometric films of individuals were evaluated at pre-treatment T0 and post- treatment T1 to determine the changes of the lower anterior teeth. Shapiro Wilk and two-way ANOVA analysis were used for the analysis of the data.Results: Statistically significant difference was found in all measures expressing lower teeth positions at T1 in both groups p

Keywords

Twin Block, Lower teeth, Class II treatment

Akrilik Capping Modifikasyonlu Twinblok Alt Keser Proklinasyonunu Engelliyor mu?

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı; Twinblok TWB apareyinin iki farklı dizaynının alt keser dişlerin konumları ve açılarına olan etkilerini incelemek ve karşılaştırmaktır.Gereç ve Yöntem: Araştırmamızda büyüme ve gelişim döneminde bulunan, Sınıf II Bölüm 1 maloklüzyona sahip toplam 30 birey dahil edilmiştir. Bireyler, alt keser bölgesinde akrilik veya kroşe içeren TWB apareyi uygulanmak üzere rastgele 2 gruba ayrılmıştır. Bireylerden tedavi öncesi T0 ve tedavi sonrasında T1 alınan sefalometrik filmlerin analizi ile alt keser dişlerde meydana gelen değişiklikler değerlendirilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde Shapiro Wilk ve Çift yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır.Bulgular: Her iki grupta da T1’de alt keser konumlarını ifade eden tüm ölçümlerde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmuştur p

Keywords

Twin Block, Alt keser, Sınıf II tedavi

References

• 1. Başçiftçi FA, Demir A, Uysal T, Sarı Z. Konya yöresi okul çocuklarında ortodontik maloklüzyonların prevelansının araştırılması: Epidemiyolojik Çalışma. Turk Ortodonti Derg 2002; 15: 92-98.
• 2. Sayın MÖ, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish Population. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 635–639.
• 3. Henry RG. A classification of Class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1957; 27: 83-92.
• 4. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr, Tollaro I. Early dentofacial features of Class II malocclusion: a longitudinal study from the deciduous through the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; 111: 502-509.
• 5. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Vorhies B, Bayati P. Changes in dentofacial structures in untreated Class ll Division 1 and normal subjects: A Longitudinal study. Angle Orthod 1997; 1: 55-66.
• 6. Pancherz H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1984; 85: 125-134.
• 7. 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: 120-127.
• 8. 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 Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 597-609.
• 9. Sarı Z, Uysal T, Karaman A, Başçiftçi F, Üşümez S, Demir A. Ortodontik maloklüzyonlar ve tedavi seçeneklerinin değerlendirilmesi: Epidemiolojik çalışma. Turk Ortodonti Derg 2003; 16: 119-126.
• 10. Sayin MO, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 635-639.
• 11. Gelgör IE, Karaman AI, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central anatolia. Eur J Dent 2007; 1: 125-131.
• 12. Vargervik K, Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1985; 88: 242-251.
• 13. Drelich RC. A cephalometric study of untreated Class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1948; 18: 70-75.
• 14. Renfroe EW. A study of the facial patterns associated with Class I, Class II division 1, and Class II division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1948;19:12-15.
• 15. McNamara JA. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 177-20
• 16. Pancherz H, Zieber K, Hoyer B. Cephalometric characteristics of Class II division 1 and Class II division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 111-120.
• 17. Freitas MR, Santos MA, Freitas KM, Janson G, Freitas DS, Henriques JF. Cephalometric characterization of skeletal Class II, division 1 malocclusion in white Brazilian subjects. J Appl Oral Sci 2005; 13: 198-203.
• 18. 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: 87-93.
• 19. Bishara SE, Ziaja RR. Functional appliances: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95: 250-258.
• 20. 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: 627-637.
• 21. Clark WJ. Twin Block Functional Theraphy: Applications in Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2nd ed., London, Mosby; 2002.
• 22. 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: 501-516.
• 23. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 104-110.
• 24. 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: 460-468.
• 25. Šidlauskas A. The effects of the Twin-block appliance treatment on the skeletal and dentolaveolar changes in Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Medicina 2005; 41: 392- 400.
• 26. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of Twinblock appliance: A cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 15-24.
• 27. Baysal A, Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 2013; 36: 164–172.
• 28. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006.
• 29. Joss-Vassalli I, Grebenstein C, Topouzelis N, Sculean A, Katsaros C. Orthodontic therapy and gingival recession: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2010; 13: 127– 141.