Jena Ashok Kumar, Duggal Ritu, Parkash Hari
Division of Orthodontics, Department of Dental Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Nov;130(5):594-602. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.025.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions.
Fifty-five girls from North India with Class II Division 1 malocclusion and the same physical growth maturation status were selected for the study. The subjects were divided among a Twin-block group (n = 25), a bionator group (n = 20), and a control group (n = 10). Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of the treatment group subjects, and prefollow-up and postfollow-up radiographs of the control group subjects, were traced manually and subjected to the pitchfork analysis.
Statistical software was used for 1-way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons (post-hoc test, Bonferroni). A P value of .05 was considered statistically significant. Neither the Twin-block nor the bionator appliance significantly restricted forward growth of the maxilla (P = .476). Mandibular growth in the Twin-block subjects was significantly greater than in controls (P = .005). Mandibular growth was comparable in the control and the bionator subjects. Molar correction, overjet reduction, and proclination of the mandibular incisors were significantly greater (P = .000) in the treated subjects compared with the controls.
Both the Twin-block and bionator appliances were effective in correcting molar relationships and reducing overjets in Class II Division 1 malocclusion subjects. However, the Twin-block was more efficient than the bionator in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
本研究旨在评估 Twin-block 矫治器和生物调节器矫治器在治疗安氏 II 类 1 分类错牙合畸形时对骨骼和牙牙槽骨的影响。
选取 55 名来自印度北部、患有安氏 II 类 1 分类错牙合畸形且身体生长发育成熟状态相同的女孩进行研究。将受试者分为 Twin-block 组（n = 25）、生物调节器组（n = 20）和对照组（n = 10）。对治疗组受试者治疗前和治疗后的头颅侧位 X 光片，以及对照组受试者随访前和随访后的 X 光片进行手工描图，并进行叉状分析。
使用统计软件进行单因素方差分析和多重比较（事后检验，Bonferroni 法）。P 值小于 0.05 被认为具有统计学意义。Twin-block 矫治器和生物调节器矫治器均未显著限制上颌骨向前生长（P = 0.476）。Twin-block 组受试者的下颌骨生长显著大于对照组（P = 0.005）。对照组和生物调节器组受试者的下颌骨生长相当。与对照组相比，治疗组受试者的磨牙矫正、覆盖减小和下颌切牙前倾显著更大（P = 0.000）。
Twin-block 矫治器和生物调节器矫治器在矫正安氏 II 类 1 分类错牙合畸形受试者的磨牙关系和减小覆盖方面均有效。然而，在治疗安氏 II 类 1 分类错牙合畸形方面，Twin-block 矫治器比生物调节器矫治器更有效。
