首页 正文

Randomized Controlled Trial American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2010 Aug;138(2):144.e1-9; discussion 144-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.025 Q13.02025

Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial

替牙期青少年Ⅱ类错 翻译改进

Badri Thiruvenkatachari  1, Jonathan Sandler, Alison Murray, Tanya Walsh, Kevin O'Brien

作者单位 +展开

作者单位

  • 1 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge St., Manchester, United Kingdom. badri.t@manchester.ac.uk
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.025 PMID: 20691354

    摘要 Ai翻译

    Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.

    Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial involving 32 boys and 32 girls aged 10 to 14 years with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. They were randomly allocated to either the Dynamax appliance group or the Twin-block appliance group. Treatment was provided by 4 clinicians at 2 centers. Records were taken at the start and the end of the functional phase and after all treatment. In addition, incisal overjet, the number of appliance breakages, and adverse events or side effects of the treatment were recorded at each patient visit.

    Results: The data monitoring committee in an interim analysis at 18 months after the start of the trial found significantly greater overjet reduction in the Twin-block group than in the Dynamax group and more breakages and adverse events with the Dynamax appliance. As a result, treatment with the Dynamax appliance was terminated, and those patients completed treatment with the Twin-block or a fixed appliance. Regression analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the performance over time between the Twin-block and Dynamax appliances in terms of reduction in overjet, with the Twin-block appliance performing significantly better than the Dynamax. The incidence of adverse events was greater in the Dynamax group (82%) than in the Twin-block group (16%), with a statistically significant difference (P <0.001) between the 2 groups.

    Conclusions: The Twin-block appliance was more effective than the Dynamax appliance when overjet was evaluated and the Dynamax appliance patients reported greater incidence of adverse events with their appliance than those who were treated with the Twin-block appliance.

    Keywords:twin-block appliances; dynamax appliances; class ii malocclusion; randomized controlled trial

    Copyright © American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 中文内容为AI机器翻译,仅供参考!

    相关内容

    期刊名:American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics

    缩写:AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC

    ISSN:0889-5406

    e-ISSN:1097-6752

    IF/分区:3.0/Q1

    文章目录 更多期刊信息

    全文链接
    引文链接
    复制
    已复制!
    推荐内容
    Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial