TWIN-BLOCK APPLIANCE

Yıl 2015, Supplement 12, 132 - 139, 24.11.2015

Ferhan Dikmen Cahide Ağlarcı

https://doi.org/10.17567/dfd.08715

Öz

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

Anahtar Kelimeler

Twin-block, functional ortopedic treatment, Class II

TWİN-BLOK APAREYİ

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Twin-blok, Fonksiyonel tedavi, Sınıf II

Kaynakça

• Dağsuyu İM. Sınıf II Bölüm 1 maloklüzyonlu bireylerde fonksiyonel ortopedik tedavi etkilerinin aksiyografik incelenmesi. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 2011;21:196- 212. yöntemlerle
• Özel N AA. Sınıf II maloklüzyonların tedavisinde kullanılan fonksiyonel ortopedik apareyler. Smyrna Tıp Dergisi 2011:48-52.
• 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.
• A GA. Sınıf II Maloklüzyonların Tedavisinde Molar Distalizasyonu. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2006;27:97- 105.
• 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.
• Profit WR, Fields, H. and Sarver, D. Contemporary Orthodontics.5 ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier: 2013 p: 490-8
• Clark WJ. The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:1-18.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:15-24.
• 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.
• 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.
• Proportional changes in
• cephalometric distances during Twin Block
• appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:485-91.
• Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA, Jr. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:159-70.
• 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.
• Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:104-10.
• Sidlauskas A. Clinical effectiveness of the Twin block appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Stomatologija 2005;7:7- 10.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Lee APSaRT. Assessed facial normality after Twin Block therapy. European Journal of Orthodontics 2010.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Pancherz H. The effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial adaptations to treatment with the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 1997;3:232-43.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• Caldwell S, Cook P. Predicting the outcome of twin block functional appliance treatment: a prospective study. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:533-9.
• Pancherz H. The mandibular plane angle in activator treatment. Angle Orthod 1979;49:11-20.
• Bondevik O. How effective is the combined activator-headgear treatment? Eur J Orthod 1991;13:482-5.
• Gianelly AA. One-phase versus two-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:556-9.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Brennan JA, Littlewood SJ. Twin-block re- activation. J Orthod 2006;33:3-6.