Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017 (2017), Article ID 4861924, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4861924
Research Article

Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion

1Department of Orthodontics, School of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
2Private Practice, Tannregulering Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway
3Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Correspondence should be addressed to Stjepan Spalj

Received 1 November 2016; Accepted 4 January 2017; Published 22 January 2017

Academic Editor: Simona Tecco

Copyright © 2017 Stjepan Spalj et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. F. Tulloch, C. Phillips, and W. R. Proffit, “Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 62–74, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. A. K. Jena, R. Duggal, and H. Parkash, “Orthopedic and orthodontic effects of twin-block appliance,” Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 225–230, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. S. K. Varlik, A. Gültan, and N. Tümer, “Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 128–134, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. K. O'Brien, T. Macfarlane, J. Wright et al., “Early treatment for Class II malocclusion and perceived improvements in facial profile,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 135, no. 5, pp. 580–585, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. V. Koretsi, V. F. Zymperdikas, S. N. Papageorgiou, and M. A. Papadopoulos, “Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 418–434, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. T. Baccetti, L. Franchi, L. R. Toth, and J. A. McNamara Jr., “Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 159–170, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. K. O'Brien, J. Wright, F. Conboy et al., “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, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 234–243, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. J. Trenouth, “Proportional changes in cephalometric distances during Twin Block appliance therapy,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 485–491, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. Y. Öztürk and N. Tankuter, “Class II: a comparison of activator and activator headgear combination appliances,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 149–157, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. R. Lehman, A. Romuli, and V. Bakker, “Five-year treatment results with a headgear-activator combination,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 309–318, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. A. K. Jena, R. Duggal, and H. Parkash, “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, vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 594–602, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. T. Baccetti, L. Franchi, and J. A. McNamara Jr., “The Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics,” Seminars in Orthodontics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 119–129, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. Lerstøl, Ø. Torget, and V. Vandevska-Radunovic, “Long-term stability of dentoalveolar and skeletal changes after activator-headgear treatment,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 28–35, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. D. S. Gill and R. T. Lee, “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, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 465–472, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. G. Dahlberg, Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students, Interscience Publications, New York, NY, USA, 1940.
  16. G. Marşan, “Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 140–148, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. Ehsani, B. Nebbe, D. Normando, M. O. Lagravere, and C. Flores-Mir, “Short-term treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 170–176, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. G. Perinetti, J. Primožič, L. Franchi, and L. Contardo, “Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in pre-pubertal and pubertal Class II patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 10, Article ID e0141198, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. L. R. Dermaut, F. van den Eynde, and G. de Pauw, “Skeletal and dento-alveolar changes as a result of headgear activator therapy related to different vertical growth patterns,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 140–146, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. H. Pancherz, “A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment,” American Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 125–134, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. S. Ruf, S. Baltromejus, and H. Pancherz, “Effective condylar growth and chin position changes in activator treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic study,” The Angle Orthodontist, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 4–11, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. Sidlauskas, “The effects of the Twin-block appliance treatment on the skeletal and dentolaveolar changes in Class II Division 1 malocclusion,” Medicina (Kaunas), vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 392–400, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. L. R. Toth and J. A. McNamara Jr., “Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 116, no. 6, pp. 597–609, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. N. Tümer and A. S. Gültan, “Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 116, no. 4, pp. 460–468, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. S. Petti, “Over two hundred million injuries to anterior teeth attributable to large overjet: a meta-analysis,” Dental Traumatology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. A. A. Sharma and R. T. Lee, “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, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 473–482, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. S. McDonagh, J. P. Moss, P. Goodwin, and R. T. Lee, “A prospective optical surface scanning and cephalometric assessment of the effect of functional appliances on the soft tissues,” European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 115–126, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. C. Flores-Mir and P. W. Major, “Cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the twin block appliance in class II division 1 malocclusion patients. A systematic review,” The Angle Orthodontist, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 876–881, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus