Herbst appliance more effective than twin-block appliance in treating adolescent Class II division I malocclusions

2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Bollen
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Division I ◽  
Herbst Appliance ◽  
Twin Block

scholarly journals Myofunctional Trainer versus Twin Block in Developing Class II Division I Malocclusion: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
Yasmine Elhamouly ◽  
Azza A. El-Housseiny ◽  
Hanan A. Ismail ◽  
Laila M. El Habashy
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Division I ◽  
Healthy Children ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Comparative Clinical Trial ◽  
Twin Block ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mandibular Retrusion

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the dentoalveolar effects of the myofunctional trainer T4KTM versus twin block in children with class II division I malocclusion. Two parallel arm randomized comparative clinical trial was conducted, including twenty healthy children, 9–12 years old, showing Angle’s class II division I malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion. Children were randomly assigned into two groups according to the appliance used; Group 1: T4k, and Group II: twin block. Follow-up was done every 4 weeks for 9 months. Postoperative cephalometric X ray, study casts and photographs were taken for measurements and comparison. T4K showed a statistically significant reduction in the overjet (−2.50 ± 1.00 mm) (p < 0.0001), and a significant increase in the lower arch perimeter (LAP) (1.19 ± 0.96 mm) (p = 0.01). The twin block showed a statistically significant reduction in the overjet (−3.75 ± 1.10 mm) (p < 0.0001), a significant reduction in the overbite (−16.22 ± 17.02 %) (p = 0.03), and a significant increase in the LAP (1.69 ± 0.70 mm) (p < 0.0001). The overjet showed a higher significant decrease in the twin block group than in T4K (p = 0.03). The mean values of the overbite were significantly decreased in twin block than in T4k (p < 0.0001). Both groups showed significant dentoalveolar improvements toward class I occlusion; however, the twin block showed significantly better results than T4K appliance.

scholarly journals A Comparative Evaluation of the Dentoskeletal Treatment Effects Using Twin Block Appliance and Myobrace System on Class II Division I Malocclusion

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (S1) ◽  
pp. S7-S14
Author(s):  
Ambili Ranjith ◽  
Jency Samuel Johnson ◽  
Savitha Satyaprasad ◽  
Hurlihal Sharath Chandra ◽  
Krishnamoorthy Shankar Havaldar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Division I ◽  
Twin Block

scholarly journals Dentoskeletal Changes in Class II Subjects following Treatment with Twin Block and Herbst Appliance

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Khurram Shahzad ◽  
Javeeria Asif Cheema ◽  
Muhammad Azeem ◽  
Waheed Ul Hamid
Keyword(s):  
Child Health ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
P Value ◽  
Herbst Appliance ◽  
Twin Block ◽  
End Of Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Objective: To compare the mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in Class II patients treated by Twin Block versus Herbst appliance.Materials & Method: The study was conducted at the Orthodontic Department of Children’s Hospital and Institute of Child Health and de’Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. The study involved 50 patients those were randomized in equal numbers according to lottery method to either Group-1 (Twin block) or Group-2 (Herbst). Mean changes in SNA, SNB and IMPA at the end of treatment was calculated by subtracting Pretreatment measurements (T1) from post treatment measurements (T2). Student t–test was used to compare the mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in both groups.Result: The comparison showed that the mean difference recorded in SNA values was -1.06±0.62 in Group-1 and -1.28±0.61 in Group-2 (p-Value 0.07), SNB was 2.14±0.70 in Group-1 and 1.22±0.55 in Group-2, (p-Value 0.001) while IMPA was 1.58±0.64 in Group-1 and 4.8±1.31 in Group-2 (p-Value 0.001).Conclusion: There was a significant difference between mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in Class II patients treated by twin block when compared to Herbst appliance. 

Perbedaan Analisis Sefalometri Skeletal Sebelum dan Sesudah Perawatan Alat Myofunctional pada Pasien Maloklusi Dentoskeletal Kelas II Divisi I dalam Masa Pertumbuhan dengan Metode Steiner

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nugroho Ahmad Riyadi
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
T Test ◽  
Analytic Study ◽  
Statistic Analysis ◽  
Twin Block ◽  
Normal Occlusion ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

The aim of orthodontics treatment is normalization of teeth position in three planes, using various orthodontics appliance to reach the chepalometric standar and normal occlusion. Orthodontic treatment for dentoskeletal class II division 1 malocclusion in growing patients using myofunctional appliance may correct anteroposterior planes of mandibula. This study was a descriptive retrospective analytic study to look at the success of Orthodontic treatment for dentoskeletal class II division 1 in growing patients with myofunctional appliance using chepalometrics analysis Steiner value. The sample used in this study is chepalogram radiographic from patient with dentoskeletal class II division 1 malocclusion in growing patients before and after using myofunctional appliance in PPDGS orthodontics Clinic of Padjadjaran University. Statistic analysis were performed with pair t-test and Wilcoxon. Based on this study, it is concluded that orthodontic treatment with myofunctional appliance such as activator and twin block in growing patient with dentoskeletal class II division 1 malocclusion shows significant changes and compatibility with the normal criteria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document