Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2017
A Cephalometric Comparison of Twin Block and Bionator Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ahmadian-Babaki Fatemeh, Araghbidi-Kashani S Mehdi, Mokhtari Saeedeh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Class II malocclusion is one of the most common orthodontic problems. In cases of class II malocclusion with mandibular deficiency, functional appliances often are used with the intent of stimulating mandibular growth. Bionator and twin block are two of the more popular functional appliances. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of these two appliances using cephalometric radiographs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cephalometric radiographs of 33 patients who had class II division I malocclusion, before and after treatment were digitalized. The mean changes in twin block and bionator groups were compared using independent t test.
RESULTS: Twin block and bionator showed no statistically significant differences in cephalometric parameters except for ANB, NA-Pog, Basal and Ar-Go-Me angles.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in dentoalveolar and mandibular position between twin block and bionator (p>0.1). Twin block was more efficient in inhibition of forward movement of maxilla (p<0.1). Key words:Functional, Class II malocclusion, Cephalometrics, Twin block, Bionator, Treatment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cephalometric radiographs of 33 patients who had class II division I malocclusion, before and after treatment were digitalized. The mean changes in twin block and bionator groups were compared using independent t test.
RESULTS: Twin block and bionator showed no statistically significant differences in cephalometric parameters except for ANB, NA-Pog, Basal and Ar-Go-Me angles.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in dentoalveolar and mandibular position between twin block and bionator (p>0.1). Twin block was more efficient in inhibition of forward movement of maxilla (p<0.1). Key words:Functional, Class II malocclusion, Cephalometrics, Twin block, Bionator, Treatment.