The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Predictors of favorable soft tissue profile outcomes following Class II Twin-block treatment

  • Kim, Ji-Eun (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Mah, Su-Jung (Department of Orthodontics, Dental Hospital, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Su-Jung (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Park, Ki-Ho (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kang, Yoon-Goo (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2017.03.08
  • Accepted : 2017.04.13
  • Published : 2018.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine cephalometric factors that help predict favorable soft-tissue profile outcomes following treatment with the Class II Twin-block appliance. Methods: Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 45 patients treated with the Class II Twin-block appliance were retrospectively analyzed. Profile silhouettes were drawn from the cephalograms and evaluated by three orthodontists in order to determine the extent of improvement. Samples were divided into a favorable group (upper 30% of visual analogue scale [VAS] scores, n = 14) and an unfavorable group (lower 30% of VAS scores, n = 14). Skeletal and soft-tissue measurements were performed on the cephalograms and an intergroup comparison was conducted. Results: An independent t-test revealed that the following pre-treatment values were lower in the favorable group compared to the unfavorable group: lower incisor to mandibular plane angle, lower incisor to pogonion distance, point A-nasion-point B angle, sella-nasion line (SN) to maxillary plane angle, SN to mandibular plane angle, gonial angle, and symphysis inclination. The favorable group had a larger incisor inclination to occlusal plane. Moreover, the favorable group showed larger post-treatment changes in gonial angle, B point projection, and pogonion projection than did the unfavorable group. Conclusions: Class II malocclusion patients with a low divergent skeletal pattern and reduced lower incisor protrusions are likely to show more improvement in soft-tissue profile outcomes following Class II Twin-block treatment.

Keywords

References

  1. Cacciatore G, Alvetro L, Defraia E, Ghislanzoni LT, Franchi L. Active-treatment effects of the Forsus fatigue resistant device during comprehensive Class II correction in growing patients. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:136-42. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.3.136
  2. Han S, Choi YJ, Chung CJ, Kim JY, Kim KH. Longterm pharyngeal airway changes after bionator treatment in adolescents with skeletal Class II malocclusions. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:13-9. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.13
  3. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:599.e1-12; discussion e1-6.
  4. Davidenko N. Silhouetted face profiles: a new methodology for face perception research. J Vis 2007;7:6.
  5. Singh GD, Clark WJ. Soft tissue changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusions treated using Twin Block appliances: finite-element scaling analysis. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:225-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/25.3.225
  6. Baysal A, Uysal T. Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:71-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq187
  7. Baysal A, Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:164-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt013
  8. Quintao C, Helena I, Brunharo VP, Menezes RC, Almeida MA. Soft tissue facial profile changes following functional appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:35-41. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji067
  9. Vargervik K, Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 1985;88:242-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(85)90219-2
  10. Barton S, Cook PA. Predicting functional appliance treatment outcome in Class II malocclusions--a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112:282-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70257-9
  11. Caldwell S, Cook P. Predicting the outcome of twin block functional appliance treatment: a prospective study. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:533-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.5.533
  12. Franchi L, Baccetti T. Prediction of individual mandibular changes induced by functional jaw orthopedics followed by fixed appliances in Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2006;76:950-4. https://doi.org/10.2319/110205-385
  13. Toureno L, Kook YA, Bayome M, Park JH. The effect of western adaptation of Hispanic-Americans on their assessment of Korean facial profiles Korean J Orthod 2014;44:28-35. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.28
  14. Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. Angle Orthod 2002;72:410-7.
  15. Bjork A. Prediction of mandibular growth rotation. Am J Orthod 1969;55:585-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(69)90036-0
  16. Tulley WJ. The scope and limitations of treatment with the activator. Am J Orthod 1972;61:562-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(72)90107-8
  17. Pancherz H. The mandibular plane angle in activator treatment. Angle Orthod 1979;49:11-20.
  18. Ahlgren J, Laurin C. Late results of activatortreatment: a cephalometric study. Br J Orthod 1976;3:181-7. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.3.3.181
  19. Parkhouse RC. A cephalometric appraisal of cases of Angle's Class II, Division I malocclusion treated by the Andresen appliance. Dent Pract Dent Rec 1969;19:425-33.
  20. Sharma AA, Lee RT. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twinblock and mini-block appliances: Part 2. Soft tissue changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:473-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.027
  21. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70232-X
  22. Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P. Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:153-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81005-4
  23. Sharma AK, Sachdev V, Singla A, Kirtaniya BC. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes concurrent to use of Twin Block appliance in class II division I cases with a deficient mandible: a cephalometric study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30:218-26. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.105014
  24. O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Appelbe P, Davies L, Connolly I, et al. Early treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:573-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.042

Cited by

  1. Distribution of Various Maxilla-Mandibular Positions and Cephalometric Comparison in Chinese Skeletal Class II Malocclusions vol.21, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2897
  2. Cephalometric predictors for optimal soft tissue profile outcome in adult Asian class I subjects treated via extraction and non-extraction. A retrospective study vol.19, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.08.002