Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(03): 680-687
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739543
Original Article

Comparative Analysis of Dentoskeletal Changes of the Twin Block Appliance and the AdvanSync2 Appliance in Treatment of Skeletal Class-II Malocclusion in Pakistani Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Fareena Ghaffar
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Abdullah Jan
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Obaid Akhtar
2   Department of Prosthodontics, HBS Dental College, Islamabad, Pakistan
,
Alaina T. Mughal 
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Rooma Shahid
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Hafiza Z. Shafique
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Khadija Bibi
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Sundas Mehmood
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Nimra Afgan
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Rumeesha Zaheer
1   Department of Orthodontics, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to compare dentoskeletal changes in skeletal class-II malocclusion with removable twin block appliance and fixed AdvanSync2 appliance.

Materials and Methods A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted over a span of 1 year at AFID at Rawalpindi. Thirty patients with skeletal class-II malocclusion, 16 males (53.3%) and 14 females (46.6%), were randomly selected and divided in two equal groups (15 each) to be treated with either fixed functional appliances (FFAs) or with removable functional appliances (RFAs). Out of 30 patients, 15 between cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) stages of 2 and 3 were treated with RFA (twin block appliances) and remaining 15 between CVM stages of 4 and 5 were treated with FFA (AdvanSync2 appliances). Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2), angular variable, and linear variable were measured to compare the dentoskeletal effects between the two groups.

Statitical Analysis Paired sample t-test was used to assess significant difference between variables at T1 (Pre-treatment) and T2 (Post-treatment) stage for both RFA and FFA group. Comparison among the RFA and FFA group was made using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U Test. IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used for evaluation.

Results No significant difference was found in angular variables between the RFA and FFA groups (p > 0.05) with the exception of linear variables. Sella-posterior nasal spine (S-PNS) length significantly increased and Jarabak's ratio significantly decreased for FFA group (p = 0.010 and 0.045, respectively), when compared with RFA group.

Conclusion Both the appliances, twin block (RFA) and AdvanSync2 (FFA), are effective for correction of skeletal class-II malocclusion. Both the appliances produced similar effects in the sagittal plane but for better vertical control twin block should be the appliance of choice. AdvanSync2 appliance could be preferred over twin block appliance when dentoalveolar and slight retrusive effect on the maxilla is desired especially for individuals in postpubertal growth spurt.

Keywords

AdvanSync2 appliance - dentoskeletal changes - fixed functional appliances - removable functional appliances - skeletal class-II malocclusion - twin block appliance

Availability of Data

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
15 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Perinetti G, Cordella C, Pellegrini F, Esposito P. The prevalence of malocclusal traits and their correlations in mixed dentition children: results from the Italian OHSAR Survey. Oral Health Prev Dent 2008; 6 (02) 119-129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tariq S, Bangash AA, Baiq AR, Hamid F, Akhtar FN, Saeed M. Condylar changes associated with functional orthopedic appliances, in skeletal class II patients. Pakistan Armed Forces Med J 2020; 70 (02) 414-419
    Google Scholar
  • 3 LaHaye MB, Buschang PH, Alexander RG, Boley JC. Orthodontic treatment changes of chin position in class II division 1 patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130 (06) 732-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ciger S, Aksu M, Germeç D. Evaluation of posttreatment changes in Class II Division 1 patients after nonextraction orthodontic treatment: cephalometric and model analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127 (02) 219-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brito DBA, Henriques JFC, Fiedler CF, Janson G. Effects of class II division 1 malocclusion treatment with three types of fixed functional appliances. Dental Press J Orthod 2019; 24 (05) 30-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Santamaría-Villegas A, Manrique-Hernandez R, Alvarez-Varela E, Restrepo-Serna C. Effect of removable functional appliances on mandibular length in patients with class II with retrognathism: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17 (01) 52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dischinger B. Skeletal class II case presentation: Utilization of the AdvanSync 2 appliance. ATiO 2018; 8 (03) 168
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Singh G, Goyal V, Rastogi S, Menon AG, Aziz SB, Sokhi RK. Management of class II division 1 malocclusion using fixed functional appliances: a case series. JoIOS 2018; 52 (01) 60-65
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Jamshir D, Valentini L, Scarola R, Pompeo E, Poma AC, Fantasia E. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects in patients with class II malocclusions using twin block appliance a review of literature. WebmedCentral ORTHODONTICS 2019; 10 (02) WMC005552
    Google Scholar
  • 10 O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F. et al. Early treatment for class II division 1 malocclusion with the twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135 (05) 573-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Access A. Save 6+ Months on Class II Cases with Advansync! . 2019 Ormco.com. 2021. AdvanSync™2 | Molar-To-Molar Appliance | Ormco Supplies. [Online] Accessed 8 November 2020 at: https://ormco.com/products/advansync/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara Jr. JA, Orthopedics D. Treatment timing for twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118 (02) 159-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Somaskandhan A, Suresh KP, Boovaraghavan S, Vijayalakshmi D. Management of skeletal class-II malocclusion using Advansync 2: a case series. Med-Leg Update 2020; 20 (04) 2233-2242
    Google Scholar
  • 14 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 (05) 594-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Burhan AS, Nawaya FR. Dentoskeletal effects of the bite-jumping appliance and the twin-block appliance in the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37 (03) 330-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Martina R, Cioffi I, Galeotti A. et al. Efficacy of the Sander bite-jumping appliance in growing patients with mandibular retrusion: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2013; 16 (02) 116-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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 (02) 164-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hotz RP. Application and appliance manipulation of functional forces. Am J Orthod 1970; 58 (05) 459-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Toth LR, McNamara Jr. JA, Orthopedics D. 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 (06) 597-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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 (04) 460-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118 (01) 24-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Trenouth MJ. 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 (01) 54-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F. et al. Effectiveness of treatment for class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124 (02) 128-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Clark WJ. The twin block traction technique. Eur J Orthod 1982; 4 (02) 129-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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 (05) 501-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of twin blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113 (01) 104-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114 (01) 15-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gandedkar NH, Revankar AV, Ganeshkar SV. Correction of a severe skeletal class II occlusion with a fixed functional appliance anchored on mini-implants: a patient report. World J Orthod 2010; 11 (04) 369-379
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Celikoglu M, Unal T, Bayram M, Candirli C. Treatment of a skeletal class II malocclusion using fixed functional appliance with miniplate anchorage. Eur J Dent 2014; 8 (02) 276-280
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bock NC, Ruf S. Dentoskeletal changes in adult class II division 1 Herbst treatment–how much is left after the retention period?. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34 (06) 747-753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Campbell C, Millett D, Kelly N, Cooke M, Cronin M. Frankel 2 appliance versus the modified twin block appliance for phase 1 treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: a randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2020; 90 (02) 202-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 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 (05) 599.e1-599.e12 , discussion e1–e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Wigal TG, Dischinger T, Martin C, Razmus T, Gunel E, Ngan P. Stability of class II treatment with an edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition: skeletal and dental changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140 (02) 210-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Al-Jewair TS, Preston CB, Moll E-M, Dischinger T. A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2012; 82 (05) 907-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar