Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jun; 119(6):572-7.AJ

Abstract

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Chesterfield Royal Hospital, Derbyshire, England.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

11395699

Citation

Parkin, N A., et al. "Comparison of 2 Modifications of the Twin-block Appliance in Matched Class II Samples." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, vol. 119, no. 6, 2001, pp. 572-7.
Parkin NA, McKeown HF, Sandler PJ. Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(6):572-7.
Parkin, N. A., McKeown, H. F., & Sandler, P. J. (2001). Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 119(6), 572-7.
Parkin NA, McKeown HF, Sandler PJ. Comparison of 2 Modifications of the Twin-block Appliance in Matched Class II Samples. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(6):572-7. PubMed PMID: 11395699.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples. AU - Parkin,N A, AU - McKeown,H F, AU - Sandler,P J, PY - 2001/6/8/pubmed PY - 2001/7/6/medline PY - 2001/6/8/entrez SP - 572 EP - 7 JF - American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics JO - Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop VL - 119 IS - 6 N2 - 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. SN - 0889-5406 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/11395699/Comparison_of_2_modifications_of_the_twin_block_appliance_in_matched_Class_II_samples_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(01)71155-9 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -