A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues

European Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 272-282

  Lee, R T ^a   Kyi, C S ^a   Mack, G J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACE; FACIAL BONE; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; METHODOLOGY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TOOTH OCCLUSION;

ADOLESCENT; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; FACE; FACIAL BONES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES; ORTHODONTICS, CORRECTIVE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; VERTICAL DIMENSION;

EID: 34548420209     PISSN: 01415387     EISSN: 14602210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm004     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Adams G L, Gansky S A, Miller A J, Harrell Jr W E, Hatcher D C 2004 Comparison between traditional 2-dimensional cephalometry and a 3-dimensional approach on human dry skulls. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 126: 397-409
2. Altaian DG 1991 Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London
3. Banks P, Wright J, O'Brien K 2004 Incremental versus maximum bite advancement during Twin Block therapy; a randomised controlled clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 126: 583-588
4. Bass N M, Bass A 2003 The Dynamax system: a new orthopedic appliance. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 37:268-277
5. British Standards Institute 1983 British standard glossary of dental terms. BS4492 British standard Institution, London
6. Chadwick S M, Banks P, Wright J L 1998 The use of myofunctional appliances in the UK: a survey of British orthodontists. Dental Update 25:302-308
7. Gill D S, Lee R T 2005 Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin Block and mini-block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 127:465-472
8. Hansen K, Koutsonas T G, Pancherz H 1997 Long-term effects of Herbst treatment on the mandibular incisor segment: a cephalometric and biométrie investigation. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 112: 92-103
9. Hillesund E, Fjeld D, Zachrisson B U 1978 Reliability of soft-tissue profile in cephalometrics. American Journal of Orthodontics 25: 225-230
10. Illing H M, Morris D O, Lee R T 1998 A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part 1 - the hard tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics 20: 501-516
11. Lund D I, Sandler PJ 1998 The effect of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 113:104-110
12. McDonagh S, Moss J P, Goodwin P, Lee R T 2001 A prospective optical surface scanning and cephalometric assessment of the effect of functional appliances on the soft tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics 23: 115-126
13. Mills C M, McCulloch KJ 1998 Treatment effects of the Twin Block appliance: a cephalometric study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 114: 15-24
14. Morris D O, Illing H M, Lee R T 1998 A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part 2: The soft tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics 20: 663-684
15. Moss J P, Linney A D, McCance A M, James D R 1994 The use of three dimensional optical scanning techniques in dental and related fields. Dental Update 21: 386-390
16. O'Brien K et al. 2003a Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or Twin-block appliances: a randomised, controlled trial American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 124: 128-137
17. O'Brien K et al. 2003b Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin Block appliance: a multicenter, randomised, controlled trial. Part 1 : Dental and skeletal effects. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 124: 234-243
18. Petit H P, Chateau M 1984 The K test and the condylar test. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 18: 726-732
19. Sharma A A, Lee R T 2005 Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 2. Soft tissue changes. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 127:473-482
20. Singh G D, Clark W J 2003 Soft tissue changes in patients with Class II division I malocclusions treated using Twin Block appliances: finite-element scaling analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics 25: 225-230
21. Tanner J M 1962 Growth at adolescence, 2nd edn. Black well Scientific Publication, Oxford
22. Toth L M, McNamara Jr J A 1999 Treatment effects produced by the Twin Block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 116: 597-609
23. Tulloch C J F, Phillips C, Proffit W R, 1998 Benefit of early Class U treatment progress report of a two-phase randomised clinical trail. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 113: 62-72