Article Data

  • Views 821
  • Dowloads 134

Original Research

Open Access

Orthopedic and orthodontic effects of Twin-block appliance

  • Ashok Kumar Jena1
  • Ritu Duggal1,*,
  • Hari Parkash2

1Division of Orthodontics, Department of Dental Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India

2Department of Dental Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.29.3.c33050g516406336 Vol.29,Issue 3,July 2005 pp.225-230

Published: 01 July 2005

*Corresponding Author(s): Ritu Duggal E-mail:


This prospective study was conducted on 24 North Indian subjects (10 Control and 14 Twin-block) to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. The result of the present study showed that Twin-block is an effective appli-ance in accelerating mandibular growth. It also helped dramatically in molar correction and overjet reduction in Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects.

Cite and Share

Ashok Kumar Jena,Ritu Duggal,Hari Parkash. Orthopedic and orthodontic effects of Twin-block appliance. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2005. 29(3);225-230.


1. White L. Early orthodontic intervention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113: 24-28, 1998.

2. Schmuth GPF. Milestones in the development and practical application of functional appliances. Am J Orthod 84: 48-53, 1983.

3. Balters W. Die Technik und Ubung der allgemeinen und speziellen Bionator-Therapie. Quintessenz 1: 77, 1964.

4. Teuscher U. A growth related concept for skeletal Class II treat-ment. Am J Orthod 74: 258-275, 1978.

5. Eirow HL. The Bionator. Br J Orthod 8: 33-36, 1981.

6. Bimler HP. Dr H. P. Bimler on functional appliances. J Clin Orthod 17: 39-49, 1983.

7. Clark WJ. The Twin-block technique. Am J Orthod 93: 1-18, 1988.

8. Clark WB. The Twin-block traction techniques. Eur J Orthod 4: 129- 138, 1982.

9. Johnston LE Jr. Balancing the books on orthodontic treatment: An integrated analysis of change. Br J Orthod 23: 93-102, 1996.

10. Hotz R. Application and appliance manipulation of functional forces. Am J Orthod 58: 459-478, 1970.

11. Toth LR, McNamara JA. Treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel com-pared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116: 597-609, 1999.

12. Tumer N, Gultan AS. Comparison of the effects of Monoblock and Twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116: 460-468, 1999.

13. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the Twin-block appli-ance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118: 24-33, 2000.

14. Trenouth MJ. Cephalometric evaluation of the Twin-block appli-ance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 117: 54-59, 2000.

15. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjil Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, 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 124: 234-243, 2003.

16. Trenouth MJ. Proportional changes in cephalometric distance during Twin-block appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 24: 485-491, 2002.

17. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I- the hard tissues. Eur J Orthod 20: 501-516, 1998.

18. Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of Twin-block appli-ance: a cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114: 15-24, 1998.

19. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin-blocks: a prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113: 104-110, 1998.

20. Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 76: 423-442, 1979.

21. Wieslander L. Intensive treatment of Class II malocclusions with headgear Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 86: 1-13, 1984.

22. Falck F, Frankel R. Clinical relevance of step-by-step mandibular advancement in the treatment of mandibular retrusion using the Frankel appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 96: 333-341, 1989.

23. Haynes S. A cephalometric study of mandibular changes in mod-ified functional regulator (Frankel) treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 90: 308-320, 1986.

24. Wieslander L, Lagerstrom L. The effects of activator treatment on Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod 75: 20-26, 1979.

25. Harvold EP, Vargervik K. Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. Am J Orthod 60: 478-490, 1971.

26. Rushforth CDJ, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Skeletal and dental changes following the use of the Frankel functional regulator. Br J Orthod 26: 127-134, 1999.

27. Tulloch JFC, Philips C, Proffit WR. Benefit of early Class II treat-ment: Progress report of a two-phased randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113: 62-72, 1998.

28. Keeling SD, Wheeler TT, King GJ, Garvan CW, Cohen DA, Cabassa S, et al. Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionator and headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113: 40-50, 1998.

29. Gafari J, Shofer FS, Jacobsson-Hunt U, Markowitz DL, Laster LL. Headgear versus functional regulator in the early treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113: 51-61, 1998.

30. Tsamtsouris A, Vedrenne D. The use of the bionator appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in the late mixed dentition. J Pedod 8: 78-100, 1983.

31. Janson IA. A cephalometric study of the efficiency of the biona-tor. Trans Europ Orthod Soc 28: 282-298, 1977.

32. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JM. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118: 159- 170, 2000.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time