These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study.
    Author: Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H.
    Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):594-602. PubMed ID: 17110256.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions. METHODS: Fifty-five girls from North India with Class II Division 1 malocclusion and the same physical growth maturation status were selected for the study. The subjects were divided among a Twin-block group (n = 25), a bionator group (n = 20), and a control group (n = 10). Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of the treatment group subjects, and prefollow-up and postfollow-up radiographs of the control group subjects, were traced manually and subjected to the pitchfork analysis. RESULTS: Statistical software was used for 1-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons (post-hoc test, Bonferroni). A P value of .05 was considered statistically significant. Neither the Twin-block nor the bionator appliance significantly restricted forward growth of the maxilla (P = .476). Mandibular growth in the Twin-block subjects was significantly greater than in controls (P = .005). Mandibular growth was comparable in the control and the bionator subjects. Molar correction, overjet reduction, and proclination of the mandibular incisors were significantly greater (P = .000) in the treated subjects compared with the controls. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Twin-block and bionator appliances were effective in correcting molar relationships and reducing overjets in Class II Division 1 malocclusion subjects. However, the Twin-block was more efficient than the bionator in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]