+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

An extended period of functional appliance therapy: a controlled clinical trial comparing the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances



An extended period of functional appliance therapy: a controlled clinical trial comparing the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances



European Journal of Orthodontics 36(5): 512-521



The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the hard- and soft-tissue effects of 15 month full-time functional appliance therapy with Twin Block (TB) and Dynamax (Dx) appliances. The effects on both hard and soft tissue were analysed using cephalograms and three-dimensional optical surface laser scans. One hundred and three subjects with a class II division 1 malocclusion, and a minimum overjet of 7mm were available for analysis following stratified randomization according to gender and age. Data was collected at the start of treatment, 15 month therapy, and after 3 month post-treatment observation. Statistical analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance. The results demonstrated both appliances corrected the overjet with significantly increased skeletal dimensional changes with the TB compared with the Dx with forward movement of pogonion of 5.2mm (TB) and 0.7mm (Dx) P = 0.003. In addition, significant changes occurred particularly in the vertical dimension where there was also an increase in total anterior face height in both groups (TB = 6.4mm, Dx = 5.5mm) and significant (P = 0.003) mandibular length changes were also observed (TB = 7.2mm, Dx = 3.8mm). The cephalometric soft-tissue changes were significantly different between the two appliances at soft-tissue pogonion (TB = 9.8mm, Dx = 4.6mm, P = 0.001). Laser scan three-dimansional changes showed significant difference in the lower labial sulcus region where forward movements were observed (TB = 8.2mm, Dx = 6.2mm; P = 0.04). Overall these changes appear to be greater and more stable than those achieved in a previous 9 month study.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036719766

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23291502

DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjs076


Related references

A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics 29(3): 272-282, 2007

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 138(2): 144.E1-9; Discussion 144-5, 2010

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 127(4): 465-72; Quiz 517, 2005

Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 2. Soft tissue changes. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 127(4): 473-482, 2005

Use of the Clark Twin Block functional appliance with and without an upper labial bow: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthodontist 82(2): 363-369, 2012

Dentoskeletal effects of the Bite-Jumping Appliance and the Twin-Block Appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Orthodontics 37(3): 330-337, 2015

A cephalometric comparison of treatment with the Twin-block and stainless steel crown Herbst appliances followed by fixed appliance therapy. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 126(1): 7, 2004

Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 124(2): 128-137, 2003

A randomized clinical trial of two alternative designs of Twin-block appliance. Journal of Orthodontics 39(1): 17-24, 2012

Early treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 135(5): 573-579, 2009

Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 2: Psychosocial effects. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 124(5): 488-94; Discussion 494-5, 2003

Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: Dental and skeletal effects. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 124(3): 234-43; Quiz 339, 2003

Incremental versus maximum bite advancement during twin-block therapy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 126(5): 583-588, 2004

Evaluation of cervical spine posture after functional therapy with twin-block appliances: A retrospective cohort study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 155(5): 656-661, 2019

Treatment with Twin-block appliance followed by fixed appliance therapy in a growing Class II patient. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 150(5): 847-863, 2016