Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion versus Twin Block appliance on mandibular growth in skeletal Class II patients

Authors: Jia-Nan Zhang, Si Chen, Cheng-Yi Huang, Chong Zhong, Jing Jin, Feng-Yang Yu, Zan-Zan Zhang, Hai-Ping Lu

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This is a retrospective study that compares mandibular growth changes in skeletal Class II patients treated by rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and following fixed appliance with those patients treated by Twin-Block (TB) and following fixed appliance.

Methods

Fourteen patients treated by RME and following fixed appliance were included into the RME group. Fifteen patients treated by Twin-Block and following fixed appliance were included into the TB group. Lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before treatment and immediately after fixed appliance treatment were used to evaluate mandibular growth effects.

Results

The starting forms of the patients in the two groups were examined to be of good comparability. The mandibular length increased significantly in both groups as measured by Co-Gn, Go-Gn and Ar-Gn, but the TB group didn’t show more mandibular growth than the RME group (P > 0.05). Skeletal changes of the mandible in vertical dimension were different in the two groups. The change in FMA was 0.35° in the RME group, while the change was 2.65° in the TB group (P < 0.001). The change in LAFH was 5.14 mm in the RME group, significantly smaller than the change of 10.19 mm in the TB group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The investigated Phase I treatment with RME followed by Phase II treatment of fixed appliance achieved the same increases in sagittal mandibular growth and facial profile improvements as the Twin-Block therapy. The treatment with RME followed by fixed appliance was better for vertical control, while the treatment with Twin-Block followed by fixed appliance significantly increased the mandibular plane angle.
Literature
1.
McNamara JA Jr. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981;51(3):177–202. PubMed
2.
Lee KY, Park JH, Tai K, Chae JM. Treatment with Twin-block appliance followed by fixed appliance therapy in a growing Class II patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(5):847–63. CrossRef
3.
Ehsani S, Nebbe B, Normando D, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(2):170–6. CrossRef
4.
Tollaro I, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Tanasescu CD. Role of posterior transverse interarch discrepancy in Class II, Division 1 malocclusion during the mixed dentition phase. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110(4):417–22. CrossRef
5.
McNamara JA Jr. Early intervention in the transverse dimension: is it worth the effort? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121(6):572–4. CrossRef
6.
Lima Filho RM, de Oliveira Ruellas AC. Mandibular behavior with slow and rapid maxillary expansion in skeletal Class II patients: a long-term study. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(4):625–31. CrossRef
7.
Guest SS, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T, Franchi L. Improving Class II malocclusion as a side-effect of rapid maxillary expansion: a prospective clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(5):582–91. CrossRef
8.
Vargervik K. Morphologic evidence of muscle influence on dental arch width. Am J Orthod. 1979;76(1):21–8. CrossRef
9.
Lineberger MW, McNamara JA, Baccetti T, Herberger T, Franchi L. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion in hyperdivergent patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(1):60–9. CrossRef
10.
Khoja A, Fida M, Shaikh A. Cephalometric evaluation of the effects of the Twin Block appliance in subjects with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion amongst different cervical vertebral maturation stages. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016;21(3):73–84. CrossRef
11.
McNamara JA Jr. Long-term adaptations to changes in the transverse dimension in children and adolescents: an overview. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(4 Suppl):S71–4. CrossRef
12.
Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118(1):24–33. CrossRef
13.
Conroy-Piskai C, Galang-Boquiren MT, Obrez A, Viana MG, Oppermann N, Sanchez F, et al. Assessment of vertical changes during maxillary expansion using quad helix or bonded rapid maxillary expander. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(6):925–33. CrossRef
14.
Abdullah RT, Kuijpers MA, Bergé SJ, Katsaros C. Steiner cephalometric analysis: predicted and actual treatment outcome compared. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2006;9(2):77–83. CrossRef
15.
Yildirim E, Karacay S, Erkan M. Condylar response to functional therapy with Twin-Block as shown by cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(6):1018–25. CrossRef
16.
Baratieri C, Alves M Jr, Sant’anna EF, Nojima Mda C, Nojima LI. 3D mandibular positioning after rapid maxillary expansion in Class II malocclusion. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(5):428–34. CrossRef
17.
Farronato G, Giannini L, Galbiati G, Maspero C. Sagittal and vertical effects of rapid maxillary expansion in Class I, II, and III occlusions. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(2):298–303. CrossRef
18.
Volk T, Sadowsky C, Begole EA, Boice P. Rapid palatal expansion for spontaneous Class II correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(3):310–5. CrossRef
19.
Arat FE, Arat ZM, Tompson B, Tanju S, Erden I. Muscular and condylar response to rapid maxillary expansion. Part 2: magnetic resonance imaging study of the temporomandibular joint. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(6):823–9. CrossRef
20.
Lima Filho RM, Lima AC, de Oliveira Ruellas AC. Spontaneous correction of Class II malocclusion after rapid palatal expansion. Angle Orthod. 2003;73(6):745–52. PubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion versus Twin Block appliance on mandibular growth in skeletal Class II patients
Authors
Jia-Nan Zhang
Si Chen
Cheng-Yi Huang
Chong Zhong
Jing Jin
Feng-Yang Yu
Zan-Zan Zhang
Hai-Ping Lu
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01344-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Oral Health 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Epinephrine penetrates through gingival sulcus unlike keratinized gingiva and evokes remote vasoconstriction in human

Research article

Remineralization of enamel subsurface lesions using toothpaste containing tricalcium phosphate and fluoride: an in vitro µCT analysis

Research article

Validation of a modified version of the Spanish Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI-SP) for adults and elder people

Research article

Evaluation of the maxillary midline, curve of the upper lip, smile line and tooth shape: a prospective study of 140 Caucasian patients

Research article

Dentists’ entrepreneurial intention and associated factors in public hospitals in major cities in Guangdong (South China): a cross-sectional study

Research article

Assessment of dental arch stability after orthodontic treatment and oral rehabilitation in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and non-clefts patients using 3D stereophotogrammetry