Journal of orthodontics · 2022
The effect of treatment timing on clinical and psychological outcomes with Twin Block therapy: A multicentre two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Mandall Nicky, Littlewood Simon, Shah Jinesh, Watkinson Simon, Glossop Sarah, Dugdale Charlotte, Curran Edith, Walsh Tanya
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether delaying treatment with a twin block appliance affects treatment outcomes, in terms of skeletal and dental change and psychological disadvantage.
DESIGN: Multicentre, two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Three UK hospital orthodontic units.
METHODS: A total of 75 participants were randomly allocated into an Immediate Treatment Group (ITG) (n= 41) and an 18-month delayed Later Treatment Group (LTG) (n=34).
OUTCOMES: Dentofacial changes were recorded from lateral cephalograms and study models, psychological impact was measured using a child perception questionnaire (CPQ11-14) and an Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) at registration (DC1), 18 months (DC2) and 3 years (DC3).
RESULTS: The ITG initial effect was a mean ANB reduction was 1.6° (P<0.001) (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-2.29), and an overjet reduction of 5.06 mm (P<0.001) (95% CI = 3.96-6.16) (boys: aged 12 years 8 months; girls: aged 11 years 8 months). There were no statistically significant differences between the ITG and LTG for twin block treatment outcomes, but the ITG active treatment time was longer (P=0.004) (ITG: 13.1 months; LTG: 9.8 months). There was insufficient evidence to state that patients were psychologically disadvantaged by waiting 18 months for active twin block treatment (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Participants achieved similar clinical and psychological outcomes irrespective of whether they started their twin block at the age of referral (ITG) or 18 months later (LTG). This suggests that boys aged 12 years 8 months and girls aged 11 years 8 months, on average, are not disadvantaged by waiting 18 months for active twin block treatment.
DESIGN: Multicentre, two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Three UK hospital orthodontic units.
METHODS: A total of 75 participants were randomly allocated into an Immediate Treatment Group (ITG) (n= 41) and an 18-month delayed Later Treatment Group (LTG) (n=34).
OUTCOMES: Dentofacial changes were recorded from lateral cephalograms and study models, psychological impact was measured using a child perception questionnaire (CPQ11-14) and an Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) at registration (DC1), 18 months (DC2) and 3 years (DC3).
RESULTS: The ITG initial effect was a mean ANB reduction was 1.6° (P<0.001) (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-2.29), and an overjet reduction of 5.06 mm (P<0.001) (95% CI = 3.96-6.16) (boys: aged 12 years 8 months; girls: aged 11 years 8 months). There were no statistically significant differences between the ITG and LTG for twin block treatment outcomes, but the ITG active treatment time was longer (P=0.004) (ITG: 13.1 months; LTG: 9.8 months). There was insufficient evidence to state that patients were psychologically disadvantaged by waiting 18 months for active twin block treatment (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Participants achieved similar clinical and psychological outcomes irrespective of whether they started their twin block at the age of referral (ITG) or 18 months later (LTG). This suggests that boys aged 12 years 8 months and girls aged 11 years 8 months, on average, are not disadvantaged by waiting 18 months for active twin block treatment.