Cargando…

A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion

BACKGROUND: Class II malocclusion is one of the most common orthodontic problems. In cases of class II malocclusion with mandibular deficiency, functional appliances often are used with the intent of stimulating mandibular growth. Bionator and twin block are two of the more popular functional applia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahmadian-Babaki, Fatemeh, Araghbidi-Kashani, S. Mehdi, Mokhtari, Saeedeh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5268123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28149473
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.53031
_version_ 1782500751533146112
author Ahmadian-Babaki, Fatemeh
Araghbidi-Kashani, S. Mehdi
Mokhtari, Saeedeh
author_facet Ahmadian-Babaki, Fatemeh
Araghbidi-Kashani, S. Mehdi
Mokhtari, Saeedeh
author_sort Ahmadian-Babaki, Fatemeh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Class II malocclusion is one of the most common orthodontic problems. In cases of class II malocclusion with mandibular deficiency, functional appliances often are used with the intent of stimulating mandibular growth. Bionator and twin block are two of the more popular functional appliances. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of these two appliances using cephalometric radiographs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cephalometric radiographs of 33 patients who had class II division I malocclusion, before and after treatment were digitalized. The mean changes in twin block and bionator groups were compared using independent t test. RESULTS: Twin block and bionator showed no statistically significant differences in cephalometric parameters except for ANB, NA-Pog, Basal and Ar-Go-Me angles. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in dentoalveolar and mandibular position between twin block and bionator (p>0.1). Twin block was more efficient in inhibition of forward movement of maxilla (p<0.1). Key words:Functional, Class II malocclusion, Cephalometrics, Twin block, Bionator, Treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5268123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52681232017-02-01 A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion Ahmadian-Babaki, Fatemeh Araghbidi-Kashani, S. Mehdi Mokhtari, Saeedeh J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: Class II malocclusion is one of the most common orthodontic problems. In cases of class II malocclusion with mandibular deficiency, functional appliances often are used with the intent of stimulating mandibular growth. Bionator and twin block are two of the more popular functional appliances. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of these two appliances using cephalometric radiographs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cephalometric radiographs of 33 patients who had class II division I malocclusion, before and after treatment were digitalized. The mean changes in twin block and bionator groups were compared using independent t test. RESULTS: Twin block and bionator showed no statistically significant differences in cephalometric parameters except for ANB, NA-Pog, Basal and Ar-Go-Me angles. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in dentoalveolar and mandibular position between twin block and bionator (p>0.1). Twin block was more efficient in inhibition of forward movement of maxilla (p<0.1). Key words:Functional, Class II malocclusion, Cephalometrics, Twin block, Bionator, Treatment. Medicina Oral S.L. 2017-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5268123/ /pubmed/28149473 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.53031 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Ahmadian-Babaki, Fatemeh
Araghbidi-Kashani, S. Mehdi
Mokhtari, Saeedeh
A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion
title A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion
title_full A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion
title_fullStr A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion
title_full_unstemmed A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion
title_short A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion
title_sort cephalometric comparison of twin block and bionator appliances in treatment of class ii malocclusion
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5268123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28149473
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.53031
work_keys_str_mv AT ahmadianbabakifatemeh acephalometriccomparisonoftwinblockandbionatorappliancesintreatmentofclassiimalocclusion
AT araghbidikashanismehdi acephalometriccomparisonoftwinblockandbionatorappliancesintreatmentofclassiimalocclusion
AT mokhtarisaeedeh acephalometriccomparisonoftwinblockandbionatorappliancesintreatmentofclassiimalocclusion
AT ahmadianbabakifatemeh cephalometriccomparisonoftwinblockandbionatorappliancesintreatmentofclassiimalocclusion
AT araghbidikashanismehdi cephalometriccomparisonoftwinblockandbionatorappliancesintreatmentofclassiimalocclusion
AT mokhtarisaeedeh cephalometriccomparisonoftwinblockandbionatorappliancesintreatmentofclassiimalocclusion