New Solution in the Treatment of Children with Class II Malocclusion: Biblock Appliance.
Journal
Nigerian journal of clinical practice
ISSN: 1119-3077
Titre abrégé: Niger J Clin Pract
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101150032
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
07
05
2024
accepted:
11
07
2024
medline:
1
9
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
30
8
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A new design, the Biblock appliance, was developed for the functional treatment of Class II malocclusions. To compare the effects of Biblock appliance (BA) and Activator appliance (AA) on the skeleton, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue in Class II malocclusions. Thirty-five patients with mandibular retrognathia caused by skeletal Class II malocclusion and normodivergent growth pattern were included in this study. After selecting the BA group (n = 17, 8 boys and 9 girls, mean age = 12.08 ± 0.37 years), we selected the active control group treated with AA (n = 18, 9 boys and 9 girls, mean age = 12.3 ± 0.27 years), which matched the BA group's development and gender. All patients were between PP2 = DP3u periods according to hand-wrist maturation. Cephalometric variables related to the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue were measured. Treatment duration was 18.17 ± 1.45 months with BA and 16.92 ± 1.09 months with AA. Skeletal Class II malocclusion improved significantly in both groups. In the compared groups, the increase in ANS-Me was significantly higher in the AA group (P < 0.05). The Cd⊥SN and S-Cd increase in the compared groups was significantly higher in the BA group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in measurements between the groups in skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue measurements (P > 0.05). The effects of AA, an appliance accepted by the orthodontic community, and BA, a new design, on the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue were similar.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A new design, the Biblock appliance, was developed for the functional treatment of Class II malocclusions.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of Biblock appliance (BA) and Activator appliance (AA) on the skeleton, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue in Class II malocclusions.
METHODS
METHODS
Thirty-five patients with mandibular retrognathia caused by skeletal Class II malocclusion and normodivergent growth pattern were included in this study. After selecting the BA group (n = 17, 8 boys and 9 girls, mean age = 12.08 ± 0.37 years), we selected the active control group treated with AA (n = 18, 9 boys and 9 girls, mean age = 12.3 ± 0.27 years), which matched the BA group's development and gender. All patients were between PP2 = DP3u periods according to hand-wrist maturation. Cephalometric variables related to the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue were measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Treatment duration was 18.17 ± 1.45 months with BA and 16.92 ± 1.09 months with AA. Skeletal Class II malocclusion improved significantly in both groups. In the compared groups, the increase in ANS-Me was significantly higher in the AA group (P < 0.05). The Cd⊥SN and S-Cd increase in the compared groups was significantly higher in the BA group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in measurements between the groups in skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue measurements (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The effects of AA, an appliance accepted by the orthodontic community, and BA, a new design, on the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue were similar.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39212437
doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_318_24
pii: 01253091-202427080-00011
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
995-1003Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice.
Références
Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, Labib A, El-Saaidi C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review. Dent Press J Orthod 2018;23:40.e1-10.
De Ridder L, Aleksieva A, Willems G, Declerck D, Cadenas de Llano-Pérula M. Prevalence of orthodontic malocclusions in healthy children and adolescents: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:7446.
Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:599.e1-e6.
Xie J, Huang C, Yin K, Park J, Xu Y. Effects of orthodontic treatment with activator appliance on patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Palliat Med 2021;10:12319–334.
Cozza P, De Toffol L, Colagrossi S. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes during activator therapy. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:293–302.
Varlik SK, Gültan A, Tümer N. Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:128–34.
Idris G, Hajeer MY, Al-Jundi A. Soft- and hard-tissue changes following treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with Activator versus Trainer: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2019;41:21–8.
Yüksel Coşkun E, Esenlik E. A Prospective study comparing adolescent and post-adolescent periods regarding effects of activator appliance in patients with class II mandibular retrognathia by using 3dMDface analysis and cephalometry. Med Sci Monit 2020;26:e921401.
Baccaglione G, Rota E, Ferrari M, Maddalone M. Second class functional treatment: Andreasen activator vs twin block. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13:144–9.
Kirtane RS, Wiltshire WA, Thiruvenkatachari B, Shah A, Bittencourt Dutra Dos Santos P, Henrique de Sa Leitao Pinheiro F. Cephalometric effects of twin-block and van Beek Headgear-Activator in the correction of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2023;163:677–89.
Bilgiç F, Başaran G, Hamamci O. Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in treating class II, division 1 malocclusions. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:445–51.
Turkkahraman H, Sayin MÖ. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: Comparison with untreated class II subjects. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:27–34.
Spalj S, Mroz Tranesen K, Birkeland K, Katic V, Pavlic A, Vandevska-Radunovic V. Comparison of activator-headgear and twin block treatment approaches in class II division 1 malocclusion. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:4861924.
Hourfar J, Kinzinger GSM, Euchner L, Lisson JA. Differential skeletal and dental effects after orthodontic treatment with bite jumping appliance or activator: A retrospective cephalometric study. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24:2513–21.
Stefanovic NL, Uhac M, Brumini M, Zigante M, Perkovic V, Spalj S. Predictors of patient compliance during Class II division 1 malocclusion functional orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2021;91:502–8.
Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in treating Class II malocclusion: A comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:594–602.
Greulich WW, Pyle SI. Radiographic Atlas of Skeletal Development of the Hand and Wrist. 2nd ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1959.
Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1953;39:729–55.
Caruso S, Nota A, Caruso S, Severino M, Gatto R, Meuli S, Mattei A, Tecco S. Mandibular advancement with clear aligners in the treatment of skeletal Class II. A retrospective controlled study. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2021;22:26–30.
Liu YP, Behrents RG, Buschang PH. Mandibular growth, remodeling, and maturation during infancy and early childhood. Angle Orthod 2010;80:97–105.
Mehta S, Arqub SA, Sharma R, Patel N, Tadinada A, Upadhyay M, et al. Variability associated with mandibular ramus area thickness and depth in subjects with different growth patterns, gender, and growth status. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2022;161:e223–34.
Khan MI, Neela PK, Unnisa N, Jaiswal AK, Ahmed N, Purkayastha A. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block appliance in patients with Class II malocclusion. Med Pharm Rep 2022;95:191–6.
Tümer N, Gültan AS. Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:460–8.
Shahamfar M, Atashi MHA, Azima N. Soft tissue esthetic changes following a modified twin block appliance therapy: A prospective study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13:255–60.
Khan AR, Fida M, Sukhia RH. Factors affecting changes in soft tissue profile after various treatment modalities for skeletal Class II malocclusion: A cross-sectional study. Int Orthod 2019;17:497–505.