Comparison between clear aligners and twin-block in treating class II malocclusion in children: a retrospective study
1Stomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases of Zhejiang Province, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterials and Devices of Zhejiang Province, 310000 Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
2Stomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, 310000 Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
3Department of stomatology, Hospital 302 attached to Guizhou aviation group, Anshun 561000, Guizhou, China
4Lishui Municipal Central Hospital, 323000 Lishui, Zhejiang, China
Submitted: 06 April 2023 Accepted: 06 June 2023
Online publish date: 28 September 2023
† These authors contributed equally.
The study herein evaluated and compared the efficacy of Clear Aligners (CA) and Twin-Block (TB) appliances as the early orthodontic treatments of developing class II division 1 malocclusion. Twenty-four patients each for CA (11.73 ± 0.33 y) and TB (11.87 ± 0.34 y) groups were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The cephalometric X-rays and intraoral photos were taken for the patients after nearly 12 months of treatment. Treatment impacts were evaluated by the molar correction and overjet reduction. The vertical and sagittal changes were analyzed through cephalometric measurements. Sella-nasion-point B angle (SNB), point A-nasion-point B angle (ANB), Wits Appraisal (AO-BO) and overjet were statistically significant regarding the sagittal changes analyzed before and after the treatments in both groups, respectively. So, no significant difference was noted in the sagittal changes between CA and TB groups. However, for the vertical changes, OP (occlusal plane) angle of CA group and OP angle, AFH (anterior facial height) and PFH (posterior facial height) of TB group were statistically significant. Moreover, the Z angle and cranial facial difficulty (C.F. difficulty) were also statistically significant in both groups. Class II children with retrognathic mandible are effectively treated by employing the CA, which has almost the same impact as of TB in sagittal and vertical changes. Resultantly, the patient profile is improved. The CA and TB treatments thus minimize the subsequent treatment difficulty by reducing the C.F. difficulty.
Twin-block appliance; Clear aligner; Cephalometric measurement; Overjet; Class II malocclusion
Jianfang He,Longshuang Hu,Yan Yuan,Peipei Wang,Feifei Zheng,Han Jiang,Wen Li. Comparison between clear aligners and twin-block in treating class II malocclusion in children: a retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2023.doi:10.22514/jocpd.2023.070.
 Paduano S, Rongo R, Bucci R, Carvelli G, Cioffi I. Impact of functional orthodontic treatment on facial attractiveness of children with class II division 1 malocclusion. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2020; 42: 144–150.
 Khan MI, Neela PK, Unnisa N, Jaiswal AK, Ahmed N, Purkayastha A. Dentoskeletal effects of twin block appliance in patients with class II malocclusion. Medicine and Pharmacy Reports. 2022; 95: 191–196.
 Kirschneck C, Proff P, Lux C. Ideal treatment timing of orthodontic anomalies—a German clinical S3 practice guideline. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics. 2022; 83: 225–232.
 Pastwa E, Haïm F, Gebeile-Chauty S. Relevance of class II interceptive treatments. Synthesis of the valid conventional means of study. L’Orthodontie Française. 2021; 92: 443–452. (In French)
 Wong KF, Chen W, Ren J, Yang Y, Lin Y. Effects of two-phase treatment with functional appliances followed by extraction versus one-phase treatment with extraction in class II growing patients: a case-control study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11: 7428.
 Cretella Lombardo E, Franchi L, Gastaldi G, Giuntini V, Lione R, Cozza P, et al. Development of a prediction model for short-term success of functional treatment of class II malocclusion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17: 4473.
 Kirtane RS, Wiltshire WA, Thiruvenkatachari B, Shah A, Bittencourt Dutra dos Santos P, Henrique de Sa Leitao Pinheiro F. Cephalometric effects of twin-block and van Beek headgear-activator in the correction of class II malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2023; 163: 677–689.
 Arponen H, Hirvensalo R, Lindgren V, Kiukkonen A. Treatment compliance of adolescent orthodontic patients with headgear activator and twin-block appliance assessed prospectively using microelectronic wear-time documentation. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2020; 42: 180–186.
 Baccaglione G, Rota E, Ferrari M, Maddalone M. Second class functional treatment: Andreasen activator vs twin block. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 13: 144–149.
 Nogueira CQ, Galvão Chiqueto KF, Freire Fernandes TM, Castanha Henriques JF, Janson G. Effects of the forsus fatigue-resistant device and mandibular anterior repositioning appliance in class II malocclusion treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2022; 162: 814–823.
 Kwon O, Joury E, Colonio-Salazar F, Moussa-Pacha M, Johal A. A comparison of children’s experiences with fixed and removable functional appliances: a qualitative study. To be published in American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2023. [Preprint].
 Caruso S, Nota A, Caruso S, Severino M, Gatto R, Meuli S, et al. Mandibular advancement with clear aligners in the treatment of skeletal class II. A retrospective controlled study. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2021; 22: 26–30.
 Sabouni W, Hansa I, Al Ali SM, Adel SM, Vaid N. Invisalign treatment with mandibular advancement: a retrospective cohort cephalometric appraisal. Journal of Clinical Imaging Science. 2022; 12: 42.
 Galan-Lopez L, Barcia-Gonzalez J, Plasencia E. A systematic review of the accuracy and efficiency of dental movements with Invisalign®. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2019; 49: 140–149.
 Feng X, Jiang Y, Zhu Y, Hu L, Wang J, Qi Y, et al. Comparison between the designed and achieved mesiodistal angulation of maxillary canines and posterior teeth and influencing factors: first premolar extraction treatment with clear aligners. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2022; 162: e63–e70.
 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. International Orthodontics. 2023; 21: 100756.
 Tektas S, Thurnheer T, Eliades T, Attin T, Karygianni L. Initial bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on aligner materials. Antibiotics. 2020; 9: 908.
 Barreto MB, Fonseca EM, Cunha AJLAD. A computerized system to conduct the Tweed-Merrifield analysis in orthodontics. Brazilian Oral Research. 2006; 20: 167–171.
 Pinho T, Gonçalves S, Rocha D, Martins ML. Scissor bite in growing patients: case report treated with clear aligners. Children. 2023; 10: 624.
 Vieira WA, Pecorari VGA, Gabriel PH, Vargas-Neto J, Santos ECA, Gomes BPFA, et al. The association of inadequate lip coverage and malocclusion with dental trauma in Brazilian children and adolescents—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dental Traumatology. 2022; 38: 4–19.
 Koskela A, Neittaanmäki A, Rönnberg K, Palotie A, Ripatti S, Palotie T. The relation of severe malocclusion to patients’ mental and behavioral disorders, growth, and speech problems. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2021; 43: 159–164.
 Ravera S, Castroflorio T, Galati F, Cugliari G, Garino F, Deregibus A, et al. Short term dentoskeletal effects of mandibular advancement clear aligners in class II growing patients. A prospective controlled study according to STROBE guidelines. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2021; 22: 119–124.
 Wu Y, Yu Q, Xia Y, Wang B, Chen S, Gu K, et al. Does mandibular advancement with clear aligners have the same skeletal and dentoalveolar effects as traditional functional appliances? BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23: 65.
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.
PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
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.