Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Aug; 138(2):144.e1-9; discussion 144-5.AJ

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial involving 32 boys and 32 girls aged 10 to 14 years with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. They were randomly allocated to either the Dynamax appliance group or the Twin-block appliance group. Treatment was provided by 4 clinicians at 2 centers. Records were taken at the start and the end of the functional phase and after all treatment. In addition, incisal overjet, the number of appliance breakages, and adverse events or side effects of the treatment were recorded at each patient visit.

RESULTS

The data monitoring committee in an interim analysis at 18 months after the start of the trial found significantly greater overjet reduction in the Twin-block group than in the Dynamax group and more breakages and adverse events with the Dynamax appliance. As a result, treatment with the Dynamax appliance was terminated, and those patients completed treatment with the Twin-block or a fixed appliance. Regression analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the performance over time between the Twin-block and Dynamax appliances in terms of reduction in overjet, with the Twin-block appliance performing significantly better than the Dynamax. The incidence of adverse events was greater in the Dynamax group (82%) than in the Twin-block group (16%), with a statistically significant difference (P <0.001) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The Twin-block appliance was more effective than the Dynamax appliance when overjet was evaluated and the Dynamax appliance patients reported greater incidence of adverse events with their appliance than those who were treated with the Twin-block appliance.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge St., Manchester, United Kingdom. badri.t@manchester.ac.ukNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

20691354

Citation

Thiruvenkatachari, Badri, et al. "Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax Appliances for the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion in Adolescents: a Randomized Controlled Trial." 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. 138, no. 2, 2010, pp. 144.e1-9; discussion 144-5.
Thiruvenkatachari B, Sandler J, Murray A, et al. Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(2):144.e1-9; discussion 144-5.
Thiruvenkatachari, B., Sandler, J., Murray, A., Walsh, T., & O'Brien, K. (2010). Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 138(2), e1-9; discussion 144-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.025
Thiruvenkatachari B, et al. Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax Appliances for the Treatment of Class II Malocclusion in Adolescents: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(2):144.e1-9; discussion 144-5. PubMed PMID: 20691354.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. AU - Thiruvenkatachari,Badri, AU - Sandler,Jonathan, AU - Murray,Alison, AU - Walsh,Tanya, AU - O'Brien,Kevin, PY - 2009/10/01/received PY - 2010/01/01/revised PY - 2010/01/01/accepted PY - 2010/8/10/entrez PY - 2010/8/10/pubmed PY - 2010/9/14/medline SP - 144.e1-9; discussion 144-5 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 - 138 IS - 2 N2 - INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial involving 32 boys and 32 girls aged 10 to 14 years with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. They were randomly allocated to either the Dynamax appliance group or the Twin-block appliance group. Treatment was provided by 4 clinicians at 2 centers. Records were taken at the start and the end of the functional phase and after all treatment. In addition, incisal overjet, the number of appliance breakages, and adverse events or side effects of the treatment were recorded at each patient visit. RESULTS: The data monitoring committee in an interim analysis at 18 months after the start of the trial found significantly greater overjet reduction in the Twin-block group than in the Dynamax group and more breakages and adverse events with the Dynamax appliance. As a result, treatment with the Dynamax appliance was terminated, and those patients completed treatment with the Twin-block or a fixed appliance. Regression analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the performance over time between the Twin-block and Dynamax appliances in terms of reduction in overjet, with the Twin-block appliance performing significantly better than the Dynamax. The incidence of adverse events was greater in the Dynamax group (82%) than in the Twin-block group (16%), with a statistically significant difference (P <0.001) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Twin-block appliance was more effective than the Dynamax appliance when overjet was evaluated and the Dynamax appliance patients reported greater incidence of adverse events with their appliance than those who were treated with the Twin-block appliance. SN - 1097-6752 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/20691354/Comparison_of_Twin_block_and_Dynamax_appliances_for_the_treatment_of_Class_II_malocclusion_in_adolescents:_a_randomized_controlled_trial_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(10)00357-4 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -