Prediction on the chin advancement of the twin block functional appliance in growing Chinese patients using the cephalometric markers: a retrospective study

In spite of the widespread use of functional appliances, broad variations were applied the treatment response. The aim of this study is to investigate the pre-treatment cephalometric predictors on the chin advancement of twin-block in growing Chinese patients with class II malocclusion. After screening, 90 patients treated by twin-block were included in the study. The treatment outcome was assessed by the alterations in the distance of skeletal pogonion (Pog) to the vertical reference plane perpendicular to the Frankfurt plane (∆Pog-VRP). Moreover, ∆Pog-VRP was divided by the cranial growth indicated by the Nasion to Basion changes (∆N-Ba) to minimize the growth discrepancy among individuals (adj∆Pog-VRP). Patients with ∆Pog-VRP/adj∆Pog-VRP above the median value were categorized into good response group (GRG/adjGRG, N = 45), while the rest were poor response group (PRG/adjPRG, N = 45). Independent t-test was used to compare the pre-treatment cephalometric measurements between GRG/adjGRG and PRG/adjPRG. Stepwise multivariate regression models were used to determine the pre-treatment cephalometric predictors for the chin advancement. Generally, there were not any significant differences between GRG/adjGRG and PRG/adjPRG regarding age, gender and cervical stage before twin-block treatment. Patients from GRG had significantly reduced cephalometric measurements in the vertical dimensions,

including ∠N-Go-Me, ∠Mandibular plane-Occlusal plane (∠MP-OP) and the sum of angles (p < 0.05) in comparison to PRG. When the individual growth was taken account, similar findings were observed. The patients from adjGRG had a significantly

lower ∠Sella Nasion line-MP (∠SN-MP), ∠Ar-Go-Me and ∠N-Go-Me, as well as an increased Posterior facial height (PFH)/Anterior facial height (AFH) (p < 0.05)

compared with their counterparts. ∠N-Go-Me variable was the independent predictor on Pog advancement with (β = −0.26, 95% CI: −0.06 to −0.01, p = 0.01) and without (β = −0.29, 95% CI: −0.06 to −0.01, p < 0.01) adjustments on individual growth. The results of this study showed that patients with a reduced N-Go-Me angle are more likely to experience a greater chin advancement following twin-block treatment.

Class II malocclusion; Functional appliance; Twin-block; Cephalometric marke

[1] Lin M, Xie C, Yang H, Wu C, Ren A. Prevalence of malocclusion in Chinese schoolchildren from 1991 to 2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2020; 30: 144–155.

[2] Moro A, Mattos CFP, Borges SW, Flores-Mir C, Topolski F. Stability of Class II corrections with removable and fixed functional appliances: a literature review. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists. 2020; 9: 56–67.

[3] Toth LR, McNamara Jr JA. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Frankel compared with an untreated Class II sample. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1999; 116: 597–609.

[4] Marsico E, Gatto E, Burrascano M, Matarese G, Cordasco G. Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances on mandibular growth in the short term. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2011; 139: 24–36.

[5] Ruf S, Baltromejus S, Pancherz H. Effective condylar growth and chin position changes in activator treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic study. The Angle Orthodontist. 2001; 71: 4–11.

[6] Serbesis-Tsarudis C, Pancherz H. “Effective” TMJ and chin position changes in Class II treatment: orthodontics versus orthopedics. The Angle Orthodontist. 2008; 78: 813–818.

[7] Rodrigues de Almeida M, Castanha Henriques JF, Rodrigues de Almeida R, Ursi W. Treatment effects produced by Frankel appliance in patients with class II, division 1 malocclusion. The Angle Orthodontist. 2002; 72: 418–425.

[8] O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie 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. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2003; 124: 234–243.

[9] Clark WJ. The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1988; 93: 1–18.

[10] Ehsani S, Nebbe B, Normando D, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2015; 37: 170–176.

[11] Li L, Liu H, Cheng H, Han Y, Wang C, Chen Y, et al. CBCT evaluation of the upper airway morphological changes in growing patients of class II division 1 malocclusion with mandibular retrusion using twin block appliance: a comparative research. PLOS ONE. 2014; 9: e94378.

[12] Güler ÖÇ, Malkoç S. Comparison of facial soft tissue changes after treatment with 3 different functional appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2020; 158: 518–526.

[13] DeVincenzo JP. Changes in mandibular length before, during, and after successful orthopedic correction of Class II malocclusions, using a functional appliance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1991; 99: 241–257.

[14] Franchi L, Baccetti T. Prediction of individual mandibular changes induced by functional jaw orthopedics followed by fixed appliances in class II patients. The Angle Orthodontist. 2006; 76: 950–954.

[15] Baccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2009; 135: 698.e1–e10.

[16] 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.

[17] Caldwell S, Cook P. Predicting the outcome of twin block functional appliance treatment: a prospective study. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 1999; 21: 533–539.

[18] Ahn SJ, Kim JT, Nahm DS. Cephalometric markers to consider in the treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion with the bionator. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2001; 119: 578–586.

[19] Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. The Angle Orthodontist. 2002; 72: 410–417.

[20] Fleming PS, Qureshi U, Pandis N, DiBiase A, Lee RT. An investigation of cephalometric and morphological predictors of successful twin block therapy. Australian Orthodontic Journal. 2012; 28: 190–196.

[21] Lau JW, Hägg U. Cephalometric morphology of Chinese with class II division 1 malocclusion. British Dental Journal. 1999; 186: 188–190.

[22] McNamara Jr JA, Franchi L. The cervical vertebral maturation method: a user’s guide. The Angle Orthodontist. 2018; 88: 133–143.

[23] Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1998; 114: 15–24.

[24] Jakobsson SO, Paulin G. The influence of activator treatment on skeletal growth in angle class II: 1 cases. A roentgenocephalometric study. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 1990; 12: 174–184.

[25] Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007; 39: 175–191.

[26] Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara Jr JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in class II malocclusion: a systematic review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2006; 129: 599.e1–e12.

[27] Morris DO, Illing HM, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part II—the soft tissues. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 1998; 20: 663–684.

[28] Björk A. Variations in the growth pattern of the human mandible: longitudinal radiographic study by the implant method. Journal of dental Research. 1963; 42: 400–411.

[29] Jacobson A, Jacobson RL. Radiographic cephalometry, from basics to 3D imaging. 2nd edn. Quintessence Publishing: New Malden, UK. 2006.

[30] Kim JE, Mah SJ, Kim TW, Kim SJ, Park KH, Kang YG. Predictors of favorable soft tissue profile outcomes following Class II Twin-block treatment. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2018; 48: 11–22.

[31] Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Seminars in Orthodontics. 2005; 11: 119–129.

[32] Lewis AB, Roche AF, Wagner B. Pubertal spurts in cranial base and mandible. Comparisons within individuals. The Angle Orthodontist. 1985; 55: 17–30.