Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples.
The purpose of this study was to compare the skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction with 2 modifications of the Twin-block appliance: Twin-block appliances that use a labial bow (TB1) and Twin-block appliances that incorporate high-pull headgear and torquing spurs on the maxillary central incisors (TB2). After pretreatment equivalence was established, a total of 36 consecutively treated patients with the TB1 modification were compared with 27 patients treated with the TB2 modification. Both samples were treated in the same hospital department and the same technician made all the appliances. The cephalostat, digitizing package, and statistical methods were common to both groups. The results demonstrated that the addition of headgear to the appliance resulted in effective vertical and sagittal control of the maxillary complex and thus maximized the Class II skeletal correction in the TB2 sample. Use of the torquing springs resulted in less retroclination of the maxillary incisors in the TB2 sample when compared with the TB1 sample; however, this difference did not reach the level of statistical significance.
Parkin
N A
NA
Chesterfield Royal Hospital, Derbyshire, England.
McKeown
H F
HF
Sandler
P J
PJ
D000293:Adolescent; D002508:Cephalometry; D002648:Child; D005115:Extraoral Traction Appliances; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008312:Malocclusion, Angle Class II / Q000628:therapy*; D016382:Orthodontic Appliance Design; D017289:Orthodontic Appliances, Functional; D009971:Orthodontics, Corrective / Q000295:instrumentation*; D019415:Torque; D016896:Treatment Outcome