Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025
Evaluation of the PowerScope Appliance Effects on the Dentoskeletal and Soft Tissue for the Treatment of Class II Malocclusions.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Babanouri Neda, Baghandeh Roghayeh, Kiumarsi Kimia
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate and compare the dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of the PowerScope and Twin Block appliances for treating Class II malocclusions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed pre- (T0) and posttreatment (T1) cephalograms of 14 patients treated with PowerScope (Group A) and 17 patients treated with Twin Block (Group B). Thirty-three cephalometric variables were assessed. Statistical analysis included paired and independent t-tests or their non-parametric equivalents.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements in soft tissue profiles. The Twin Block group demonstrated a significantly greater increase in SNB angle (p = 0.048) and more pronounced changes in UL-SnPog' and LL-SnPog' posttreatment (p = 0.021 for both). The PowerScope group exhibited significantly greater increases in IMPA and Md-NB (p = 0.029 and p < 0.001, respectively) and a significantly shorter treatment duration (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Both appliances effectively treat Class II malocclusion and improve lip positioning. The Twin Block appliance is associated with greater mandibular skeletal advancement, while the PowerScope appliance leads to greater lower incisor protrusion and a shorter treatment time.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed pre- (T0) and posttreatment (T1) cephalograms of 14 patients treated with PowerScope (Group A) and 17 patients treated with Twin Block (Group B). Thirty-three cephalometric variables were assessed. Statistical analysis included paired and independent t-tests or their non-parametric equivalents.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements in soft tissue profiles. The Twin Block group demonstrated a significantly greater increase in SNB angle (p = 0.048) and more pronounced changes in UL-SnPog' and LL-SnPog' posttreatment (p = 0.021 for both). The PowerScope group exhibited significantly greater increases in IMPA and Md-NB (p = 0.029 and p < 0.001, respectively) and a significantly shorter treatment duration (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Both appliances effectively treat Class II malocclusion and improve lip positioning. The Twin Block appliance is associated with greater mandibular skeletal advancement, while the PowerScope appliance leads to greater lower incisor protrusion and a shorter treatment time.