+ 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

Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial



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



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. 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. 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. 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.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 052227636

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 20691354

DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.025


Related references

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 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

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, 2014

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

A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 9(1): E107, 2017

A comparison of Twin Block, Andresen and removable appliances in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Functional Orthodontist 9(4): 26-31, 1992

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

Accelerating Treatment of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion using Fixed Twin Block Appliances. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 11(2): 146-150, 2018

Treatment of pseudo-class III malocclusion with a modified reverse twin block and fixed appliances. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 49(7): 470-476, 2015

Comparative evaluation of treatment effects between two fixed functional appliances for correction of Class II malocclusion: A single-center, randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthodontist 88(3): 259-266, 2018

Class II malocclusion treatment using combined Twin Block and fixed orthodontic appliances - A case report. Saudi Dental Journal 23(1): 43-51, 2011

Effects of Twin-Block and Faramand-LL appliances on soft tissue profile in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. International Journal of Orthodontics 25(4): 57-62, 2014

Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 130(5): 594-602, 2006

Treatment of large overjet in Angle Class II: division 1 malocclusion with Andresen activators versus prefabricated functional appliances-a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. European Journal of Orthodontics 38(5): 516-524, 2016

Effect of Treatment with Twin-Block Appliances on Body Posture in Class II Malocclusion Subjects: A Prospective Clinical Study. Medical Science Monitor 23: 343-352, 2017