Investigation Of The Effects Of Twin-Block Appliances On Demineralization Of Lower First Premolar

Year 2024, Volume: 25 Issue: 1, 28 - 35, 05.07.2024

Esra Ulusoy Mutluol Mehmet Akın

https://doi.org/10.69601/meandrosmdj.1508216

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate possible mineral losses in mandibular first premolars after the use of twin-block appliance, by enamel microhardness measurement method.

Materials and Methods: Twenty patients (12 females, 8 males; mean age=12.21±1.12) indicated as fixed orthodontic treatment with mandibular first premolar extraction after functional treatment with twin-block were included in the study. The twin-block appliance was used continuously (excluding meals) for 12 months. The appliance used in this research, which is a split-mouth study, was designed to cover the first premolar only on one side of the mandible, leaving the opposite the first premolar tooth exposed. After the extraction of the mandibular first premolars, two groups were formed: the teeth outside the appliance (Group I) and the teeth inside the appliance (Group II). Hardness measurements were calculated using Vicker’s microhardness measuring device on the buccal and lingual regions of the both groups. 200 g load was applied to specimens for 10 sec. Two Independent Sample t test used in the statistical analysis of the data.

Results: A statistically significant difference was found between the hardness values of the buccal and lingual tooth regions of Group I and Group II (p <0.05). Group II showed statistically significantly lower hardness values on both tooth regions (buccal region and lingual region) than Group I. In both groups, the hardness values on the buccal regions of the teeth were found to be significantly lower than the hardness values on the lingual regions (p <0.05).

Conclusion: There is a possibility of mineral loss in the teeth remaining inside the appliance in treatments using the twin-block appliance

Keywords

Demineralization, hardness, myofunctional treatment, twin-block

References

• 1. Rothstein T, Yoon-Tarlie C. Dental and facial skeletal characteristics and growth of males and females with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion between the ages of 10 and 14 (revisited)—Part I: Characteristics of size, form, and position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117: 320-32.
• 2. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara Jr JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 599. e1-. e12.
• 3. Pancherz H, Ruf S. The Herbst appliance: research-based updated clinical possibilities. World J Orthod 2000; 1(1).
• 4. Clark W. The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 93: 1-18.
• 5. Schaefer AT, McNamara Jr JA, 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.
• 6. Dyer F, McKeown H, Sandler P. The modified twin block appliance in the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions. Journal of orthodontics 2001; 28: 271- 80.
• 7. Dixon M, Jones Y, Mackie I, Derwent S. Mandibular incisal edge demineralization and caries associated with Twin Block appliance design. Journal of orthodontics 2005; 32: 3-10.
• 8. Anders T. Textbook of clinical cariology. Munksgaard textbook. 1994: 259-81.
• 9. Balenseifen JW, Madonia J. Study of dental plaque in orthodontic patients. J Dent Res 1970; 49: 320-4.
• 10. Greene J. Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc 1964; 68: 7-13.
• 11. Sidlauskas A. The effects of the Twin-block appliance treatment on the skeletal and dentolaveolar changes in Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Medicina (Kaunas) 2005; 41: 392-400.
• 12. Hägg U, Rabie ABM, Bendeus M, Wong RW, Wey MC, Du X, et al. Condylar growth and mandibular positioning with stepwise vs maximum advancement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 525-36.
• 13. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 15-24.
• 14. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 104-10.
• 15. Trenouth M. Cephalometric evaluation of the Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117: 54-9.
• 16. 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: 460-8.
• 17. Khoja A, Fida M, Shaikh A. Cephalometric evaluation of the effects of the Twin Block appliance in subjects with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion amongst different cervical vertebral maturation stages. Dental Press J Orthod 2016; 21: 73-84.
• 18. Lee R, Kyi C, Mack G. 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: 272-82.
• 19. Toth LR, McNamara Jr 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.
• 20. Varlık SK, Gültan A, Tümer N. Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 128-34.
• 21. Sundararaj D, Venkatachalapathy S, Tandon A, Pereira A. Critical evaluation of incidence and prevalence of white spot lesions during fixed orthodontic appliance treatment: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Society of Preventive \& Community Dentistry 2015; 5: 433.
• 22. Øgaard B, Rølla G, Arends J. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization: Part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94:68-73.
• 23. Alexander SA. The effect of fixed and functional appliances on enamel decalcifications in early Class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103: 45-7.
• 24. Birdsall J, Robinson S. A case of severe caries and demineralisation in a patient wearing an essix-type retainer. Prim Dent J 2008; 15: 59-61.
• 25. Joiner A. The bleaching of teeth: a review of the literature. Journal of dentistry 2006; 34(7):412-9.
• 26. Kodaka T, Debari K, Yamada M, Kuroiwa M. Correlation between microhardness and mineral content in sound human enamel. Caries Res 1992; 26: 139-41.
• 27. Hansen K, Koutsonas TG, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment on the mandibular incisor segment: a cephalometric and biometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 92-103.
• 28. Cuy JL, Mann AB, Livi KJ, Teaford MF, Weihs TP. Nanoindentation mapping of the mechanical properties of human molar tooth enamel. Arch Oral Biol 2002; 47: 281-91.
• 29. Zheng J, Huang Y, Qian L, Zhou Z. Nanomechanical properties and microtribological behaviours of human tooth enamel. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology 2010; 224: 577-87.
• 30. Herkströter F, Witjes M, Ruben J, Arends J. Time dependency of microhardness indentations in human and bovine dentine compared with human enamel. Caries Res 1989; 23: 342-4.
• 31. Chaudhary A, Ingle NA, Kaur N, Gupta R. Effect of Fluoridated Dentifrices on Microhardness of Enamel Surface: InVitro Study. Journal of Advanced Oral Research 2013; 4: 11-6.
• 32. Adebayo OA, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ, Adams GG, Collins ML. Enamel microhardness and bond strengths of self‐etching primer adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 2010; 118: 191-6.
• 33. Montasser MA, El-Wassefy NA, Taha M. In vitro study of the potential protection of sound enamel against demineralization. Prog Orthod 2015; 16: 1-6.
• 34. Craig R, Peyton F. Elastic and mechanical properties of human dentin. Journal of dental research 1958; 37: 710-8.
• 35. Collys K, Slop D, Cleymaet R, Coomans D, Michotte Y. Load dependency and reliability of microhardness measurements on acid-etched enamel surfaces. Dental Materials 1992; 8: 332-5.
• 36. Wilson TG, Love B. Clinical effectiveness of fluoride-releasing elastomers. II. Enamel microhardness levels. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 379-81.
• 37. Meredith N, Sherriff M, Setchell D, Swanson S. Measurement of the microhardness and Young's modulus of human enamel and dentine using an indentation technique. Arch Oral Biol 1996; 41: 539-45.
• 38. Gutiérrez-Salazar MdP, Reyes-Gasga J. Microhardness and chemical composition of human tooth. Materials Research 2003; 6: 367-73.
• 39. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 234-43.
• 40. Suddick R HR, Reller R,. Salivary water and electrolytes and oral health. In: The Biolologic Basis of Dental Caries Ed: Menaker L, Hagerstown, MD, Harper and Row. 1980: 132-43.
• 41. Samuel S, Rubinstein C. Microhardness of enamel restored with fluoride and non-fluoride releasing dental materials. Braz Dent J. 2001; 12: 35-8.
• 42. González-Cabezas C. The chemistry of caries: remineralization and demineralization events with direct clinical relevance. Dent Clin North Am 2010; 54: 469-78.
• 43. Chaussain C, Vital SO, Viallon V, Vermelin L, Haignere C, Sixou M, et al. Interest in a new test for caries risk in adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14: 177-85.
• 44. Zimmer BW, Rottwinkel Y. Assessing patient-specific decalcification risk in fixed orthodontic treatment and its impact on prophylactic procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 318-24.
• 45. Travess H, Roberts-Harry D, Sandy J. Orthodontics. Part 6: Risks in orthodontic treatment.. Br Dent J 2004; 196: 71-7.