Comparison of AdvanSync2^® and Twin Block Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion With Retrognathic Mandible—An Observational Retrospective Study

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the treatment outcomes between Twin Block and AdvanSync2® appliances by comparing the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes. Materials and Methods: Radiographic data of 20 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Data were selected from patients in their skeletal growth spurt as evaluated by the cervical vertebral maturation method (CVMI 2, 3, and 4), with class II malocclusion characterized with retrognathic mandible (ANB > 4°, SNB < 77°, FMA = 25 ± 5°, overjet > 5 mm). There were 10 patients in each group that underwent orthodontic correction for class II malocclusion: either using Twin Block or AdvanSync2®. Independent t test and Paired t test and chi-square tests were used for the data analysis. The level of statistical significance was set at P value ≤.05. Results: The chronological and skeletal age were similar in both the groups. Records were taken for the functional treatment with mean treatment span of 8 ± 1 month. Changes in SNB (group I = 1.59°, group II = 3.11°) ( P < .01), Co-Gn (group I = 2.89 mm, group II = 5.34 mm), and U1-L1° (group I = −1.51°, group II = 2.97°) showed statistically different outcome between the groups, when the pre-post data were studied. Rest of the variables—cranial base, maxillary skeletal, mandibular skeletal, intermaxillary, vertical skeletal, maxillary dentoalveolar, mandibular dentoalveolar, and soft tissue—showed similar outcome ( P > .05). Conclusion: Both appliances lead to desirable outcomes in the correction of class II malocclusion. AdvanSync2® resulted in inducing more of changes in SNB and effective mandibular length as compared to Twin Block. Overjet and molar relation improved significantly with both the appliances. Both the appliances resulted in similar skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes.

A Comparative Analysis of Treatment Effects of PowerScope and AdvanSync2 in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion: A Retrospective Study

“…PowerScope utilizes an anterior attachment, whereas AdvanSync2 is situated on molars. Our findings contradict those of a previous study [ 18 ], which reported a substantial decrease in overbite with AdvanSync. It is advisable to employ FFA supported with mini plates to mitigate dental side effects on the lower anterior teeth [ 22 ].…”

“…Both dental appliances achieved mandibular advancement; however, AdvanSync2 demonstrated a greater degree of advancement than PowerScope did. This finding was substantiated by previous research [ 10 , 18 ]. In contrast, some studies have reported contradictory results [ 8 , 19 ].…”

Evaluation of Clinical Efficacy Between Forsus and Advansync Fixed Functional Appliance for the Treatment of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Using 3D Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT): A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

“…The AdvanSync appliance resulted in significant extrusion and retroclination of upper incisor, proclination of lower incisors, improvement in molar relation and overjet. These findings are in agreement with earlier studies that evaluated the dentoalveolar effects of functional appliances [ 13 , 15 - 17 ]. There was an improvement in the facial soft tissue convexity in both Forsus and AdvanSync appliance group in the current study.…”

“…This effective result with AdvanSync appliance may be attributed due to the effective full-time wear obtained whereas patient compliance may have been compromised with the Twin Block appliance. There was also reduction in SNA angle which was not significant [ 17 ]. Similar findings were found in the present study.…”

The Effectiveness of Using Twin Block Functional Appliances and Activators in Class II Malocclusion

“…In short term, removable functional appliances are effective in improving class II malocclusion. (20)…”