A prospective evaluation of bass, bionator and twin block appliances. Part I - the hard tissues

Illing, Heather; Morris, David; Lee, Robert T.

doi:10.1093/ejo/20.5.501

Cited by 186 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As for the dentoalveolar changes, a contribution to overjet correction in the bionator group was provided by both proclination of the lower incisors and retroclination of the upper incisors in the short term, thus confirming the findings of Illing et al 8 However, most of these differential changes in dental inclination diminished at the long-term observation. The comparison on the overall observation period showed only a slight residual palatal inclination of the upper incisors in the treated group (about 1.5 degrees more than in untreated controls).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…The overbite was reduced by about 3 mm in the bionator group when compared with the controls long-term. A previous prospective clinical trial 8 with short-term observations reported similar findings for changes in the vertical dentofacial components induced by the bionator.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…[2][3][4][5] The literature contains a large number of studies (including randomized clinical trials on one-phase vs two-phase treatment) that have investigated the mechanisms of action and the effects of bionator appliance in Class II division 1 malocclusion. [3][4][5][6][7][8] In a recent systematic review of the literature, 9,10 the bionator has shown moderate effectiveness and efficiency in inducing supplementary growth of the mandible in treated subjects vs untreated Class II controls, with approximately 30% of the preadolescent bionator patients showing correction of Class II molar and skeletal relationships when reevaluated after phase-2 treatment. Only a few of the clinical trials on bionator treatment recorded the dentoskeletal changes in the long term.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Long-Term Dentoskeletal Effects and Facial Profile Changes Induced by Bionator Therapy

Malta

Baccetti

Franchi

et al. 2010

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the long-term skeletal and soft tissue changes induced by the bionator in Class II subjects. Materials and Methods: The treatment sample consisted of 20 Class II patients (6 males and 14 females) treated consecutively with the bionator. The sample was evaluated at T1, start of treatment; T2, end of bionator therapy; and T3, long-term observation (including fixed appliances). Mean age at the start of treatment was 10 years 2 months (T1); at posttreatment, 12 years 4 months (T2); and at long-term follow-up, 18 years 11 months (CS 6). The control group consisted of 20 subjects (8 males and 12 females) with untreated Class II malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed at the three time points for all groups. Student's t-tests were used for comparisons of starting forms, and of the T1-T2 and T1-T3 changes between groups. Results: The bionator group showed significant, favorable T1-T2 changes both at the skeletal and dentoalveolar levels. The vertical dimension was increased. Significant modifications were assessed for the soft tissues as well. The treated group showed a final improvement in soft tissue pogonion of about 2.5 mm. Significant mandibular changes were noted in the treated group, with a net average 3.3 mm long-term increase in mandibular length compared with untreated Class II controls. Conclusions: This study suggests that bionator treatment of Class II malocclusion maintains favorable results over the long-term with a combination of skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes. (Angle Orthod 2010;80:10-17.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Long-Term Dentoskeletal Effects and Facial Profile Changes Induced by Bionator Therapy

Malta

Baccetti

Franchi

et al. 2010

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, most comparable studies [7][8][9][10][11][12] may have only included Class II division 1 malocclusions (not always clear from the selection criteria), whereas a proportion (18%) of the current sample could likely have been classified as Class II division 2. Therefore, the comparisons that follow must be interpreted with prudence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental and skeletal changes in mild to moderate Class II malocclusions treated by either a Twin-block or Xbow appliance followed by full fixed orthodontic treatment

Ehsani¹,

Nebbe²,

Normando

et al. 2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the short-term skeletal and dental effects of two-phase orthodontic treatment including either a Twin-block or an XBow appliance. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective clinical trial of 50 consecutive Class II cases treated in a private practice with either a Twin-block (25) or XBow (25) appliance followed by full fixed orthodontic treatment. To factor out growth, an untreated Class II control group (25) was considered.Results: A MANOVA of treatment/observation changes followed by univariate pairwise comparisons showed that the maxilla moved forward less in the treatment groups than in the control group. As for mandibular changes, the corpus length increase was larger in the Twin-block group by 3.9 mm. Dentally, mesial movement of mandibular molars was greater in both treatment groups. Although no distalization of maxillary molars was found in either treatment group, restriction of mesial movement of these teeth was seen in both treatment groups. Both treatment groups demonstrated increased mandibular incisor proclination with larger increases for the XBow group by 3.3u. The Wits value was decreased by 1.6 mm more in the Twin-block group. No sexrelated differences were observed. Conclusions: Class II correction using an XBow or Twin-block followed by fixed appliances occurs through a relatively similar combination of dental and skeletal effects. An increase in mandibular incisor inclination for the XBow group and an increased corpus length for the Twin-block group were notable exceptions. No overall treatment length differences were seen. (Angle Orthod. 2015;85:997-1002.)

show abstract

“…16,17,19,28 The proclination of mandibular incisors was probably due to mesial force on mandibular incisors induced by protrusion of mandible. 16,29 Toth and McNamara 16 concluded that lingual tipping of the maxillary incisors is due to the contact of the lip musculature during Twin-block treatment. This lingual tipping can also be due to the labial wire in Bionator and twin block appliances, which might come into contact with the incisors during sleeping, causing them to retract.…”

Section: Dental Effects Of Twin Blocksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Versatile functional appliance- Twin block

2017

Int. J. Curr. Res. Med. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A prospective evaluation of bass, bionator and twin block appliances. Part I - the hard tissues

Cited by 186 publications

References 48 publications

Long-Term Dentoskeletal Effects and Facial Profile Changes Induced by Bionator Therapy

Long-Term Dentoskeletal Effects and Facial Profile Changes Induced by Bionator Therapy

Dental and skeletal changes in mild to moderate Class II malocclusions treated by either a Twin-block or Xbow appliance followed by full fixed orthodontic treatment

Versatile functional appliance- Twin block

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About