The effects of removable vs fixed twin block appliances on the oral and gingival health. A randomized clinical trial
Keywords:
Biopesticides, Management, Potato, VirusesAbstract
Introduction: Twin block appliance (TB) has been used for decades as a gold standard treatment for class 2 skeletal malocclusion in growing patients. Different designs of fixed twin block appliances have been introduced recently.
The aim of this study is to investigate the oral side effects associated with fixed or removable twin block appliance.
methodology: a group of 24 skeletal class 2 patients with deficient mandible were randomly received either fixed twin block or removable twin block appliance and followed up for 9 months to investigate the oral and gingival effects.
The results: showed that speech and eating difficulties was evident in the fixed twin block group for only one week. Redness of palatal mucosa was evident in some cases of the removable appliance but without pain or signs of candida infection. This was healed after appliance discontinuation. The oral hygiene was the main factor influencing the oral and gingival health. The cephalometric measurements showed significant proclination of the lower incisors in both groups with insignificant decrease in the thickness of the labial bone.
Conclusion: both fixed and removable appliance cause lower incisor proclination but with no significant decrease in the labial alveolar bone thickness, the gingival health is mainly affected by the oral hygiene not the type of the appliance, The gingival and mucosal redness, swelling, speech or eating difficulties associated with twin block was temporary and not significant.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Alhammadi, M. S.; Halboub, E.; Fayed, M. S.; Labib, A.; El-Saaidi, C. Global Distribution of Malocclusion Traits: A Systematic Review. Dental Press J Orthod 2018, 23 (6), e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.E1-10.ONL.
McNamara, J. A. Components of Class II Malocclusion in Children 8-10 Years of Age. Angle Orthod 1981, 51 (3), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1981)051<0177:cocimi>2.0.co;2.
Clark, W. J. The Twin Block Technique. A Functional Orthopedic Appliance System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988, 93 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90188-6.
Clark, W. J. New Horizons in Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics. J Orthod Sci 2012, 1 (3), 60. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.103861.
Clark William J.; Mahony Derek. Clark Twin Blocks. heal talk A journal of clinical dentistry 2018, 11 (1).
Ehsani, S.; Nebbe, B.; Normando, D.; Lagravere, M. O.; Flores-Mir, C. Short-Term Treatment Effects Produced by the Twin-Block Appliance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Orthod 2015, 37 (2), 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1093/EJO/CJU030.
Zhang, C. xi; Shen, G.; Ning, Y. jun; Liu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, D. xu. Effects of Twin-Block vs Sagittal-Guidance Twin-Block Appliance on Alveolar Bone around Mandibular Incisors in Growing Patients with Class II Division 1 Malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020, 157 (3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJODO.2019.04.029.
Burhan, A. S.; Nawaya, F. R. 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 (3), 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/EJO/CJU052.
Schulz, K. F.; Altman, D. G.; Moher, D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2010, 1 (2), 100– 107. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.72352.
Lund, D. I.; Sandler, P. J. The Effects of Twin Blocks: A Prospective Controlled Study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998, 113 (1), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70282-3.
Buyukcavus, M. H.; Kale, B. Skeletal and Dental Effects of Twin-Block Appliances in Patients Treated With or Without Expansion. Turk J Orthod 2021, 34 (3), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2021.20103.
Gill, D. S.; Lee, R. T. Prospective Clinical Trial Comparing the Effects of Conventional Twin-Block and Mini-Block Appliances: Part 1. Hard Tissue Changes. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2005, 127 (4), 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.012.
Kirtane, R. S.; Wiltshire, W. A.; Thiruvenkatachari, B.; Shah, A.; Bittencourt Dutra dos Santos, P.; Henrique de Sa Leitao Pinheiro, F. Cephalometric Effects of Twin-Block and van Beek Headgear-Activator in the Correction of Class II Malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2023, 163 (5), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJODO.2022.05.020.
Zhang, C. xi; Shen, G.; Ning, Y. jun; Liu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, D. xu. Effects of Twin-Block vs Sagittal-Guidance Twin-Block Appliance on Alveolar Bone around Mandibular Incisors in Growing Patients with Class II Division 1 Malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020, 157 (3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJODO.2019.04.029.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
