Archive \ Volume.14 2023 Issue 2

Clinical Success, Patients’ Satisfaction and Dentoalveolar Changes After Using Twin Block and Bionator Appliances: Systematic Review

Ahmed Abdullah Bahamid , Felwa Sulaiman AlHudaithi

Abstract

The twin block and the bionator from Balters are two of the most widely utilized functional appliances available today. While they are both tooth-borne, the twin block is designed to be worn full-time and operates all functional forces, including mastication forces, used to the dentition. The impacts of these appliances have yet to be compared in many researches.

In summary, the studies presented various findings related to the effectiveness of Bionator and Twin Block appliances in treating Class II malocclusions. Twin Block was observed to have positive effects on mandibular growth, overjet reduction, molar correction, and incisor proclination, while both appliances were found to induce changes in temporomandibular joint position. However, there were no significant differences in skeletal and dental effects between Bionator and Twin Block, and both caused significant soft tissue changes. A literature review suggested that Twin Block appliances enhance mandibular development, but there is ongoing debate about the causes of mandibular growth and the role of patient compliance in device effectiveness. Additionally, a cephalometric analysis revealed no significant differences between Twin Block and Bionator in specific angles.


Downloads: 140
Views: 769

How to cite:
Vancouver
Bahamid AA, AlHudaithi FS. Clinical Success, Patients’ Satisfaction and Dentoalveolar Changes After Using Twin Block and Bionator Appliances: Systematic Review. Arch Pharm Pract. 2023;14(2):147-52. https://doi.org/10.51847/IMBf1mq1eu
APA
Bahamid, A. A., & AlHudaithi, F. S. (2023). Clinical Success, Patients’ Satisfaction and Dentoalveolar Changes After Using Twin Block and Bionator Appliances: Systematic Review. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 14(2), 147-152. https://doi.org/10.51847/IMBf1mq1eu

Download Citation
References
  1. Jungbauer R, Koretsi V, Proff P, Rudzki I, Kirschneck C. Twenty-year follow-up of functional treatment with a bionator appliance: A retrospective dental cast analysis. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(2):209-15.
  2. Pintucci F, Maspero C, De Grazia MT, Angelino E, Vincenzo M, Farronato M, et al. Use of Clark's twin block for the treatment of angle class ii malocclusion during development: retrospective study based on literature data. Int J Clin Dent. 2022;15(2).
  3. Bahar AD, Kamarudin Y, Chadwick S. A national survey of orthodontists in Malaysia and their use of functional appliances for Class II malocclusions. Aust Orthod J. 2021;37(2):217-26.
  4. Hanoun AA, Rao GK, Khamis MF, Mokhtar N. Efficacy of the Prefabricated Myofunctional Appliance T4FTM in Comparison to Twin Block Appliance for Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Malays J Med Health Sci. 2020;16(4).
  5. Balakrishnan A, Antony V, Parayarthottam P, Ali J. One-phase Management with a Standard Twin-Block Appliance Followed by Fixed Orthodontic Treatment–A Case Report. J Res Adv Dent. 2022;13(2):1-5.
  6. Akan B, Erhamza TS. Does Appliance Design Affect Treatment Outcomes of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion? A Two-Center Retrospective Study. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2021;12(2).
  7. Oliver GR, Pandis N, Fleming PS. A prospective evaluation of factors affecting occlusal stability of Class II correction with Twin-block followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;157(1):35-41.
  8. Siara-Olds NJ, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger J, Bayirli B. Long-term dentoskeletal changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA functional appliances. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(1):18-29.
  9. Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(5):594-602.
  10. Chavan SJ, Bhad WA, Doshi UH. Comparison of temporomandibular joint changes in Twin Block and Bionator appliance therapy: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:1-7.
  11. Chavan SJ, Bhad WA, Doshi UH. Comparison of temporomandibular joint changes in Twin Block and Bionator appliance therapy: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Prog Orthod. 2014,11(1):221-8.
  12. Alsheikho HO, Jomah DH, Younes M, Tizini M, Hassan H, Khalil F. Evaluation of head and cervical spine posture after functional therapy with Twin Block and Bionator appliances: A pilot randomized controlled trial. CRANIO®. 2021:1-0.
  13. Gupta C. A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study to Correlate the Oropharyngeal Airway Dimensions in Angle’s Class II Division I Patients Treated with Functional Appliance-an Invitro Study. Iran J Orthod. 2012:7(2):12-9.
  14. Miresmaeili A, Javanshir B, AkbarZadeh M. Cephalometric Comparison of a Modified Bionator (Farmand Appliance) and Twin-Block Appliance in Treatment of Skeletal Cl II Malocclusion. Iran J Orthod. 2014;9(1):13-20.
  15. Rodi G, Emanuele F, Elisa L, Martina Maria D, Gabriella P. Twin Block, Bionator and Frankel II: comparative study. WebmedCentral Orthodontics. 2016;7(11):WMC005214.
  16. Ahmadian-Babaki F, Araghbidi-Kashani SM, Mokhtari S. A cephalometric comparison of twin block and bionator appliances in treatment of class II malocclusion. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(1):e107.
  17. Bondemark L, Kallunki J, Paulsson L. An updated systematic review regarding early Class II malocclusion correction. J World Fed Orthod. 2019;8(3):89-94.
  18. Frilund E, Sonesson M, Magnusson A. Patient compliance with Twin Block appliance during treatment of Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial on two check-up prescriptions. Eur J Orthod. 2023;45(2):142-9.
  19. Elabbassy EH, Abdeldayem RF. One Phase versus Two Phase Treatment in Management of Growing Class II patients: A Retrospective study. Egypt Dent J. 2023;69(3):1721-30.
  20. Mehyar L, Sandler J, Thiruvenkatachari B. Does observational study on the effectiveness of the Twin Blocks overestimate or underestimate the results? A comparative analysis of retrospective samples versus randomized controlled trial. J World Fed Orthod. 2021;10(2):43-8.
  21. Sabouni W, Mansour M, Gandedkar NH. Scope of clear aligner therapy (CAT) in Phase I (early) orthodontic treatment. InSeminars in Orthodontics 2023 May 21. WB Saunders.
  22. Inchingolo AD, Patano A, Coloccia G, Ceci S, Inchingolo AM, Marinelli G, et al. The Efficacy of a New AMCOP® Elastodontic Protocol for Orthodontic Interceptive Treatment: A Case Series and Literature Overview. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(2):988.
  23. Sun R, Liu P. A growing adolescent with Class II Division 1 malocclusion featuring a retruded mandible and proclined mandibular incisors treated with clear aligners in a combined orthopedic and orthodontic approach. AJO-DO Clin Companion. 2023.
  24. Naik H, Maurya RK. Modification of Twin-block appliance using an innovative approach. J Dent Def Sect. 2022;16(2):174-8.
  25. Bajjad AA, Chauhan AK, Singh G, Hani SU. Assessment and implication of growth in the management of sagittal dysplasia. Orange Books Publication; 2023.
  26. Pacha MM, Fleming PS, Johal A. A comparison of the efficacy of fixed versus removable functional appliances in children with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(6):621-30.
  27. Alsheikho HO, Jomah DH, Younes M, Tizini M, Hassan H, Khalil F. Evaluation of head and cervical spine posture after functional therapy with Twin Block and Bionator appliances: A pilot randomized controlled trial. CRANIO®. 2021:1-0.
  28. Xie J, Zheng Y, Wu J. Three-dimensional dentoskeletal effects of the Angelalign A6 clear aligners in a skeletal Class II growing patient: A case report. Int Orthod. 2023;21(2):100756.

 

 

 


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.