Effectiveness of treatment for class II malocclusion with the herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial

O’Brien, Kevin; Wright, Jean L.; Conboy, Frances; San-jie, Yeweng; Mandall, Nicky; Chadwick, Stephen; Connolly, Ivan; Cook, Paul A.; Birnie, David; Hammond, Mark; Harradine, Nigel; Lewis, David H.; McDade, Cathy; Mitchell, Laura E.; Murray, Alison; O’Neill, Julian; Read, M. J. F.; Robinson, Stephen; Roberts-Harry, D; Sandler, Jonathan; Shaw, Ian

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00345-7

Cited by 228 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Of all appliances, fixed functional appliances (FFAs) are gaining popularity because compliance may be better than removable appliances. 6 Class II correction with a FFA is a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes, 7,8 which include restraining maxillary growth, dubbed as the ''headgear effect,'' 8 retroclination of maxillary 9 and proclination of mandibular incisors, 9-11 distalization of upper and mesial movement of lower molars, 10,11 along with clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane. 9 Historically, FFAs are advocated towards the end of the pubertal growth spurt.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with Twin Force Bite Corrector

Chhibber

Upadhyay

Uribe

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the dentoskeletal effects and treatment efficiency of the Twin Force Bite Corrector (TFBC) appliance in Class II correction of patients treated before or after the pubertal growth spurt. Materials and Methods: Forty-one normodivergent Class II patients treated with the TFBC appliance were divided into two groups based on their cervical vertebral maturation stage (CVMS). Group 1 (G1) consisted of 23 patients (mean age 12.44 6 1.59 years) where treatment was initiated before the pubertal growth spurt (CVMS I and II), while group 2 (G2) consisted of 18 patients (mean age 13.76 6 1.44 years) where treatment was started after the pubertal growth spurt (CVMS III to V). Dentoskeletal measurements were made on lateral cephalograms taken before (T1) and after orthodontic treatment (T2). Results: During treatment, G1 had significantly greater skeletal correction than G2, with more dentoalveolar effects being observed in G2 than G1. However, on comparing both groups at the end of treatment (T2) when growth is complete, no differences in the parameters measured were observed. Overall, treatment time was significantly longer for G1 (3.67 6 1.45 years) compared to G2 (2.75 6 1.07 years). Conclusions: There is no difference in overall dentoskeletal effects obtained at the end of treatment by the TFBC appliance in normodivergent prepubertal vs postpubertal patients. However, treatment efficiency based on treatment timing is significantly greater for the postpubertal group. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:718-727.)

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with Twin Force Bite Corrector

Chhibber

Upadhyay

Uribe

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The severity of initial skeletal discrepancy has been suggested as affecting the efficiency of functional appliance treatment, 5 but it has also been argued that larger skeletal discrepancies do not respond as favorably to functional treatment because the treatment effect cannot fully counteract the initial skeletal discrepancy. 6 In contrast, overall mandibular changes (Co-Pog) were not significantly different between the groups. It is known, however, that the Co-Pog measurement can be affected by landmark identification errors (more specifically in locating condylion).…”

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

“…Both the item-level CVI (I-CVI) and the content validity of the overall scale or the scale-level CVI (S-CVI) were calculated according to Lynn's method (1986) (5,12,13). The item-level CVI (I-CVI) was calculated as the number of content experts who rated each item 3 or 4 (relevant and very relevant) divided by the total number of experts (the proportion of experts who rated each item as content valid).…”

Section: The Constructsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The questionnaires used in this study were produced by O'Brien et al (13) for the evaluation of patient perception and experience with functional appliances and since fixed and functional appliance orthodontic treatment share many aspects it was decided to modify and validate these questionnaires for fixed appliances rather than starting afresh.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three questionnaires to assess the perception of fixed orthodontic therapy before, during and after treatment: validity and reliability

Yassir

McIntyre

Bearn

2016

EORTHO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBackground/objective: To assess the validity and reliability of a series of three questionnaires for the quantification of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. Subjects and methods:The study was carried out at the University of Dundee with content and face validity being assessed using proformas. Initially ten experts (Orthodontic Specialists) assessed content validity with 11 professionals (seven Orthodontic Specialists and four Postgraduates) and 20 patients assessing face validity. Content validity was determined according to the values of item-level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI/Ave), while specially designed feedback forms were used for face validation. Internal consistency determined the reliability of the questionnaires according to the value of Cronbach alpha correlation coefficient test. The three questionnaires were then modified according to the recommendations of professionals and patients with seven experts reassessing content validity and ten newly selected patients assessing face validity. Results: The first round of content validity revealed that around half of the items in the questionnaires were not valid. Therefore, the questionnaires were not valid as a whole (S-CVI/Ave = 0.60). After modifying the questionnaires and removing the non-valid items, the new versions of the Pretreatment, Orthodontic Experience, and Post-treatment Questionnaires showed high levels of face validity, content validity (S-CVI/Ave: 0.99, 0.97, and 0.99, respectively) and good levels of internal consistency (α = 0.86, 0.78, and 0.88, respectively). Limitation: The patient sample was collected from a single university clinic and from one city within the UK and this could affect the generalizability of the results. Conclusion: Three content valid and reliable questionnaires have been developed and validated for the evaluation of patient perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. Implications: Unlike other tools that assess oral health quality of life, this series of three questionnaires assess the perception of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment before, during and after treatment.

show abstract

Effectiveness of treatment for class II malocclusion with the herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial

Cited by 228 publications

References 19 publications

Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with Twin Force Bite Corrector

Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with Twin Force Bite Corrector

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

Three questionnaires to assess the perception of fixed orthodontic therapy before, during and after treatment: validity and reliability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About