Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: Conventional technique vs aesthetic approach

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different mandibular advancement methods on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue structures through cephalometric measurements. Materials and methods: Twenty-four Class II division 1 patients (10 males, 14 female) treated with twin block (TB) or aesthetic approach (EA: Essix plates + Class II elastics) from the archive of our faculty were included in the study. There were 12 individuals in the EA group (mean age: 12.2 ± 1.0) and 12 individuals in the TB group (mean age: 11.8 ± 1.1 years). The skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the appliances were evaluated by performing 24 measurements, 12 linear and 12 angular, on the pre and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs. AudaxCeph 5.0 software (Ljubljana, Slovenia) was used for the analysis. A paired sample t-test was employed to assess the changes after one year of utilizing the appliance for each group. Intergroup comparison was performed by using student t test. Results: The mandibular base was observed to move forward significantly in both groups (p<0.05). However, the forward movement of the mandibular base was greater in the TB group than in the EA group (p<0.05). There was no difference in lower incisor protrusion between the two treatment methods. The EA device was found to cause a significant increase in vertical direction parameters (p<0.05). Conclusion: Both methods resulted in Class II malocclusion correction as well as an acceptable occlusion plus profile. The effects of EA were primarily dentoalveolar. In patients with high aesthetic expectations, EA could be an alternative for TB.

Keywords

• Class II malocclusion
• Mandibular retrognathia
• Mandibular advancement
• Twinblock
• Clear aligners.

References

1. 1. Bilgic F, Gelgor IE, Celebi AA. Malocclusion prevalence and orthodontic treatment need in central Anatolian adolescents compared to European and other nations’ adolescents. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20:75–81. google scholar
2. 2. Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, Labib A, El-Saaidi C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 2018;23:1–10. google scholar
3. 3. McNamara JA. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 198;51:177–202. google scholar
4. 4. Moss ML. The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 4. The epigenetic antithesis and the resolving synthesis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:410–7. google scholar
5. 5. Moss ML. The differential roles of periosteal and capsular functional matrices in orofacial growth. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:96–101. google scholar
6. 6. Camcı H, Doruk C, Saraydin SÜ. Effect of strontium ranelate on condylar growth during mandibular advancement in rats. Turkish J Orthod 2020;33:216-23. google scholar
7. 7. Mamandras AH, Allen LP. Mandibular response to orthodontic treatment with the Bionator appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990;97:113–20. google scholar
8. 8. Vargervik K, Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1985;88:242–51. google scholar

9. 9. Türkkahraman H, Sayın MÖ. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:27–34. google scholar
10. 10. Zelderloo A, Cadenas de Llano-Pérula M, Verdonck A, Fieuws S, Willems G. Cephalometric appraisal of Class II treatment effects after functional and fixed appliances: a retrospective study. Eur J Orthod 2016;39:334-41. google scholar
11. 11. Chen Z, Chen Q, Fan X, Li Y, Mo S. Stepwise versus single-step mandibular advancement with functional appliance in treating class II patients. J Orofac Orthop / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 2020;81:311–27. google scholar
12. 12. 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 Dentofac Orthop 2006;130:594–602. google scholar
13. 13. Tripathi T, Singh N, Rai P, Gupta P. Comparison of dentoskeletal changes, esthetic, and functional efficacy of conventional and novel esthetic twin block appliances among class II growing patients: A pilot study. Turkish J Orthod 2020;33:77–84. google scholar
14. 14. Al-Jewair T, Kurtzner K, Giangreco T, Warunek S, Lagravère-Vich M. Effects of clear aligner therapy for Class II malocclusion on upper airway morphology and daytime sleepiness in adults: A case series. Int Orthod 2020;18:154–64. google scholar
15. 15. 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;116:460–68. google scholar
16. 16. McNamara JA. A method of cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod 1984;86:449–469. google scholar
17. 17. Ricketts RM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. Angle Orthod 1981;51:115–50. google scholar
18. 18. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod. 1953;39:729–55. google scholar
19. 19. Livas C. The Hybrid Aesthetic Functional (HAF) Appliance: A Less Visible Proposal for Functional Orthodontics. Case Rep Dent 2013;2013:1–7. google scholar
20. 20. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie YW, Mandall N, Chadwick S, et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: Dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124:234–43. google scholar
21. 21. Dibiase AT, Cobourne MT, Lee RT. The use of functional appliances in contemporary orthodontic practice. Br Dent J 2015;218:123–8. google scholar
22. 22. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;118:159–70. google scholar
23. 23. Kilpeläinen P V, Phillips C, Tulloch JF. Anterior tooth position and motivation for early treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;63:171–4. google scholar
24. 24. Dolce C, McGorray SP, Brazeau L, King GJ, Wheeler TT. Timing of Class II treatment: Skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007;132:481–9. google scholar
25. 25. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Appelbe P, Davies L, Connolly I, et al. Early treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance: A multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2009;135:573–9. google scholar
26. 26. Clark WJ. Twin Blocks designed for 24-hour wear. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2019;156:295. google scholar
27. 27. Cabrera M de C, Cabrera CAG, Freitas KMS de, Freitas MR de, Janson G, Cabrera L de C. Cephalometric effects of the use of 10-hour Force Theory for Class II treatment. Dental Press J Orthod 2012;17:31–40. google scholar
28. 28. Panigrahi P, Vineeth V. Biomechanical Effects of Fixed Functional Appliance on Craniofacial Structures. Angle Orthod 2009;79:668–75. google scholar
29. 29. Janson G, Sathler R, Fernandes TM, Branco NC, Freitas MR. Correction of Class II malocclusion with Class II elastics: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:383-92. google scholar
30. 30. Giancotti A, Pirelii P, Mampieri G. Correction of Class II Malocclusions in Growing Patients by Using the Invisalign® Technique: Rational Bases and Treatment Staging. J Orthod Endod 2017;3:1-12. google scholar
31. 31. Demir A, Babacan H, Nalcaci R, Topcuoglu T. Comparison of retention characteristics of Essix and Hawley retainers. Korean J Orthod 2012;42:255–62. google scholar
32. 32. Uzel A, Uzel I, Toroglu MS. Two different applications of class II elastics with nonextraction segmental techniques. Angle Orthod 2007;77:694–700. google scholar
33. 33. Jena AK, Duggal R. Treatment effects of twin-block and mandibular protraction appliance-IV in the correction of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2010;80:485–91. google scholar
34. 34. Hotz RP. Application and appliance manipulation of functional forces. Am J Orthod 1970;58:459–78. google scholar
35. 35. 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. google scholar
36. 36. Trenouth MJ. Proportional changes in cephalometric distances during Twin Block appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:485-91. google scholar
37. 37. Saleh M, Hajeer MY, Muessig D. Acceptability comparison between Hawley retainers and vacuum-formed retainers in orthodontic adult patients: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2017;39:453–61. google scholar