Comparison of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of two different mandibular advancement methods: conventional technique vs aesthetic approach

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different mandibular advancement methods on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue structures through cephalometric measurements.

Materials and methods: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two different mandibular advancement methods on skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue structures through cephalometric measurements.

Results: The mandibular base was observed to move forward significantly in both groups (p<0.05). However, the forward movement of the mandibular base was greater in the TB group than in the EA group (p<0.05). There was no difference in lower incisor protrusion between the two treatment methods. The EA device was found to cause a significant increase in vertical direction parameters (p<0.05).

Conclusion: Both methods resulted in Class II malocclusion correction as well as an acceptable occlusion plus profile. The effects of EA were primarily dentoalveolar. In patients with high aesthetic expectations, EA could be an alternative for TB.

Keywords: clear aligners; Class II malocclusion; mandibular advancement; mandibular retrognathia; twin-block.

Figure 1.

The design of twin-block.

Figure 2.

The EA appliance design. A: frontal view, B: right lateral view, C: left lateral view, D: upper occlusal view, E: lower occlusal view.

Figure 3.

S: sella, N: Nasion, Co:condylion, Ar:articulare, A: A point, B: B point, Ms: molar superior, Mi: molar inferior, Is: incisor superior, Pg: pgonion, Gn: gnathion, Me: menton, Go: gonion, Ar: articulare, Co: condylion, Po: porion, Or: orbitale, A/OLp: linear position of the maxillary base, Pg/OLp: linear position of the mandibular base, Is/OLp: position of the maxillary central incisor; Ii/OLp: position of the mandibular central, Mi/OLp: position of the lower first molar, Ms/OLp: position of the upper first molar.