Frankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A randomized clinical trial
- PMID: 31613144
- PMCID: PMC8051232
- DOI: 10.2319/042419-290.1
Frankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A randomized clinical trial
Abstract
Objective: To compare Phase 1 treatment, using the Frankel 2 (FR2) or the modified Twin Block (MTB), for Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents with respect to: treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives.
Materials and methods: Sixty participants with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were randomly assigned to either the FR2 or MTB appliance in a two-armed parallel randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1 to 1. Time to achieve a Class I incisor relationship was the primary outcome. The number of appliance breakages was recorded. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate pre- and post-treatment occlusal outcome on study models. Participants completed the child OHRQoL (oral health-related quality of life), Piers-Harris, Standard Continuum of Aesthetic Need (SCAN), and Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) questionnaires pre- and post-treatment; parents completed a SCAN questionnaire.
Results: Forty-two participants completed treatment (FR2: 20; MTB: 22). Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data for noncompleters. Mean treatment duration was similar for the two appliances (FR2: 376 days [SD 101]; MTB: 340 days [SD 102]; P = .41). There were no significant differences in mean number of appliance breakages (FR2: 0.3 SD 0.7; MTB: 0.4 SD 0.8; P = .67 or mean PAR score P = .48). Patient and parent perspectives did not differ between appliances (P > .05).
Conclusions: Phase 1 treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives were similar in 11-14 year olds with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated using the FR2 or MTB appliance.
Keywords: Class II division 1 malocclusion; Frankel appliance; Phase 1 treatment duration; Twin Block appliance.
Figures
References
-
- Chestnutt IG, Burden DJ, Steele JG, Pitts NB, Nuttall N, Morris AJ. The orthodontic condition of children in the United Kingdom in 2003. Br Dent J. 2006;200:609–612. - PubMed
-
- Petti S. Over two hundred million injuries to anterior teeth attributable to large overjet: a meta-analysis. Dent Traumatol. 2015;31(1):1–8. - PubMed
-
- DiBiase AT, Sandler PJ. Malocclusion, orthodontics and bullying. Dent Update. 2. 28:464–466. 001; - PubMed
-
- Johal A, Cheung MYH, Marcenes W. The impact of two different malocclusion traits on quality of life. Br Dent J. 2007. 27:202(2):E2. - PubMed
-
- O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1 Dental and Skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(3):234–243. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources