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

Abstract

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.

The Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnostics of Radix Paramolaris: A Case Report

“…The case study presented an early treatment of a preadolescent boy with severe Class II malocclusion. The first phase treatment with an activator functional appliance improved both orofacial functions and morphology; treatment effects were consistent with previously reported studies [24,25]. Before the second phase of orthodontic treatment, a very rare accidental discovery of RP was made.…”

“…Due to the patient's young age and growth potential, functional treatment with growth modification was selected. The patient was treated with a removable functional activator appliance, which has previously been shown as very effective in early Class II/1 treatment [24,25]. The patient was instructed to wear the appliance at least 10 hours daily; the patient was compliant with appliance wear.…”

Toxicological Profile of Biological Environment of Two Elastodontic Devices

“…The advantage of this type of therapy is that it targets the etiological factors underlying the pathology and intervenes in the correction of oropharyngeal muscle dysfunction, contributing to improving the health of the oral cavity, physical appearance, but also the posture of the tongue and airway volume. Although the effectiveness of the treatment has been proven in multiple clinical trials, the issue of compliance and safety profile remains to be discussed, even considering that this type of treatment is especially addressed to children and adolescents [26]. Orthodontic appliances are meant to stay in contact with the oral mucosa for a long time, and for this reason, biocompatibility studies are an important step in ensuring their safe use.…”

Elastodontic Devices in Orthodontics: An In-Vitro Study on Mechanical Deformation under Loading

“…These appliances have been described to be clinically capable of improving skeletal patterns as Class II malocclusions, at an early age in a relatively cost-effective manner, by acting on muscular dysfunction and repositioning the mandible [ 13 ]. In the literature, these appliances were investigated in clinical cases of class II malocclusion, and were described as influencing the sagittal plane in class II malocclusion, in a manner comparable to that of other functional devices such as the twin-block [ 19 ], but are less effective than other appliances as the activator [ 20 ].…”