Evaluation of the physical properties of a novel twin block appliance in treatment of skeletal class II growing females with mandibular deficiency

Hebat Allah Yehia Ismail; Hoda M. Abdel Aziz; Hazem H. Kazem; Dalia M.  el Boghdady; Mostafa M. El Dawlatly

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6n7.11008

Authors

Hebat Allah Yehia Ismail Assistant lecturer, Health Radiation Research Department, National Center For Radiation Research and Technology, Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority,Cairo, Egypt and 3 ahmed el zomor, Nasr city, Cairo, Egypt, Postal Code: 11787, Cairo, Egypt.
Hoda M. Abdel Aziz Professor, Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Hazem H. Kazem Assistant professor, Health Radiation Research Department, National Center For Radiation Research and Technology, Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority, Cairo, Egypt.
Dalia M. el Boghdady Lecturer, Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mostafa M. El Dawlatly Lecturer, Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Keywords:

twin block appliance, polymers, physical properties, gamma irradiation

Abstract

Objective: This study was performed to reveal the physical changes of polymers used after gamma irradiation of a modified twin block appliance versus conventional twin block appliance in the treatment of growing females with skeletal Class II malocclusion having mandibular deficiency. Materials and methods: The total sample consisted of 12 specimens 6 from every polymer, modified twin block group which was composed of polyethylene polymer and conventional twin block group which was formed of poly methyl-methacrylate polymer used in this study, exposed to different gamma irradiation doses (25 KGray and 30 KGray) in order to test their physical properties. Assessment was done using UV-visible spectroscopy and scanning electron microscope. Results: This study revealed that concerning the gamma radiation effect on the polymers used, Poly methyl methacrylate showed yellowish color change and increased number of pores on its surface after irradiation while polyethylene vacuum sheets didn’t show any color change but the scratches and pores appeared on its surface using scanning electron microscope. Conclusion: From the previous results it can be concluded that the modified twin block appliance can be used as an alternative orthopedic appliance in treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion growing subjects with mandibular retrusion.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, Labib A, El-Saaidi C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018;23(6):40.e1–40.e10. doi:10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl

Moyers RE, Riolo ML, Guire KE, Wainright RL, Bookstein FL. Differential diagnosis of class II malocclusions : part1-facial types associated with class II malocclsuions. Am. J. orthodont. 1980: 78:477-494.

El-mangoury NH. skeletal component of angle class II malocclusion. Egy orthod. J. 1990;vol4. No1:57-67

Clark WJ. Twin block functional therapy applications in dentofacial prthopedics 2nd edition, mosby-wolf, 2002.

Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara Jr JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class two malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:599.e1e599.e12.

Singh D. and Clark. Localization of mandibular changes in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusions treated with Twin-block appliances: Finite element scaling analysis. Am J of Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop April 2001;119:4

Proffit WR., Phillips C., Tulloch JF., Medland PH. Surgical versus orthodontic correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion in adolescents: effects and indications. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1992;7(4):209-20.

Wong R.B., Alkhalil A.M., and Rabie A.B. M. Use of cervical vertebral maturation to determine skeletal age. Am. J. of Orthod 2009 0ct:484e1-e6

Varlik SK, Gultan A, Nazli Tumer N. Comparison of the effects of twin block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:128–34

O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, et al. Early treatment for Class II Division 1malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:573 e9.

Mark J.E, Physical Properties of Polymers Handbook, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 2007.

Navarro, R., Burillo, G., Adem, E., & Marcos-Fernández, A. Effect of Ionizing Radiation on the Chemical Structure and the Physical Properties of Polycaprolactones of Different Molecular Weight. Polymers. 2018:10(4):397.

Henry RG: a classification of class II,division 1 malocclusion. Angle orthod. 1957: 27:83- 92.

Mcnamara, J. A. ‘Components of Class II Malocclusion in Children 8–10 Years of Age’, The Angle Orthodontist. Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists, 1981: 51(3): 177– 202.

Karlsen A.T. Craniofacial morphology in children with Angle Class II-1 malocclusion with and without deepbite. Angle Orthod 1994;64(6):437-46.

Pancherz H., Zieber K., Hoyer B. Cephalometric characteristics of Class II division 1 and Class II division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children. Angle Orthod. 1997;67(2):111-20.

Ceylan I., Eroz U. B. The Effects of Overbite on the Maxillary and Mandibular Morphology. Angle Orthod 2001;71:110–115.

Ul-hamid W., Asad S. prevalence of skeletal components of malocclusion using composite cephalometric analysis. pakistan oral & dent. J. 2003: 23 (2).

Bishara SE. Class II Malocclusions: Diagnostic and Clinical Considerations With and Without Treatment. Semin Orthod 2006;12:11-24.

Sidlauskas A, Svalkauskiene V, Sidlauskas M. Assessment of skeletal and dental pattern of Class II division 1 malocclusion with relevance to clinical practice. Stomatologija. 2006;8(1):3-8.

Isik F, Nalbantgil D, Sayinsu K, Arun T. A comparative study of cephalometric and arch width characteristics of Class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod. 2006 Apr;28(2):179-83.

Gul E., Fida M. Pattern of malocclusion in orthodontic patients: a hospital based study. JAMC Jan-Mar 2008;20(1):43-7.

Al-Khateeb EA, Al-Khateeb SN. Anteroposterior and vertical components of class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2009 Sep;79(5):859-66.

Oshagh M., Ghaderi,F., Pakshir,H.R. & Baghmollai,A.M. Prevalence of malocclusions in school-age children attending the orthodontics department of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. EMHJ, 2010: 16 (12), 1245-1250.

Al-hammadi MS. The prevalence of malocclusion in a group of Yemeni adult population: an epidemiologic study. MSc thesis, department of orthodontics, cairo university;2010.

Aldrees AM. Pattern of skeletal and dental malocclusions in Saudi orthodontic patients. Saudi Med J. 2012 Mar;33(3):315-20.

Castelo KMS, Bramante FS. Determination of the structural characteristics in youngsters from Ceará with Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012 July- Aug;17(4):140-7

Uzuner F.D., Aslan B.I., Dinçer M. Dentoskeletal morphology in adults with Class I, Class II Division 1, or Class II Division 2 malocclusion with increased overbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthod. 2019 Aug;156(2):248-256.e2

Clark WJ. The twin block technique A functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;29(3):255-30.

DeVincenzo JP, Winn MW. Orthopedic and orthodontic effects resulting from the use of a functional appliance with different amounts of protrusive activation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989 Sep;96(3):181-90.

Lund DI. and Sandler PJ. The effects of Twin Blocks: A prospective controlled study. Am J. Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1998: 113(1), 104–110.

Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I--The hard tissues. Eur J Orthod. 1998 Oct;20(5):501-16.

Tümer N and Gültan AS. Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:460-8.

Toth LR and McNamara JA Jr. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Dec;116(6):597-609.

Trenouth MJ. Cephalometric evaluation of the Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000 Jan;117(1):54-9.

Banks P., Wright J., O'Brien K. Incremental versus maximum bite advancement during twin-block therapy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Nov;126(5):583-8.

Gilla DS and Lee RT.Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin- block and mini-block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127:465-72.

Sharmaa AA. And Lee RT. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 2. Soft tissue changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127:473-82.

Jena Ak. , Duggal R., Parkashc H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twinblock and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: A comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130:594-602.

Zupancic S., Pohar M., Farcnik F. and Ovsenik M. Overjet as a predictor of sagittal skeletal relationships. Eur J. Orthod 30 (2008) 269–273.

Niu Y, Zhou H. Effect of functional appliances on mandibular growth on skeletal class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2011 Aug;29(4):384- 8.

Baysal A, Uysal T. soft tissue effects of twin block and herbest appliances in patients with class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 2011; feb 28.

El kattan AE. Modified twin block appliance for class II division 1 treatment in mixed dentition. Msc department of orthodontics, Cairo university, 2012.

Ehsani S., Nebbe B., Normando D., Lagravere M.O. and Flores-Mir C. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod,2008: 37(2), 170–176.

Giuntinia V., Vangelistia A., Masuccia C., Defraiab E., McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. Treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance vs the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in growing Class II patients. Angle Orthod Sep 2015: 85(5);784-789.

Singh A., Chain S., Kulshrestha R., Gupta M., Passi D., Singh M. Comparison between conventional Twin block and a modified Essix twin block in adolescents with Class II malocclusion. Intl J Dent Research 2016; 1(1): 1-5

Patel P, Shanthraj R, Garg N, Vallakati A. Skeletal Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with twin-block appliance. Int J Orthod Rehabil 2017;8:31-7.

Van der Plas MC, Janssen KI, Pandis N, Livas C. Twin Block appliance with acrylic capping does not have a significant inhibitory effect on lower incisor proclination. Angle Orthod. 2017 Jul;87(4):513-518.

Elfeky HY., Fayed MS., Alhammadi MS., Soliman SAZ., El Boghdadi DM. Three- dimensional skeletal, dentoalveolar and temporomandibular joint changes produced by Twin Block functional appliance. J Orofac Orthop. 2018 Jul;79(4):245-258.

Golfeshan F, Soltani MK, Zohrei A, Poorolajal J. Comparison between Classic Twin-block and a Modified Clear Twin-block in Class II, Division 1 Malocclusions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(12):1456-1463.

Wooside DG, Metaxas A., altuna G. the influence of functional appliance therapy on glenoid fossa remodeling. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987 sep;92(3):181-98.

Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, Mcnamara JA Jr. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:159-70.

Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr: Mandibular growth as related to cervical vertebral maturation and body height. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:335-340, 2000.

Baccetti T, franchi L.The Fourth Dimension in Dentofacial Orthopedics: Treatment Timing for Class II and Class III Malocclusions. World J Orthod 2001;2:159-167.

Baccetti T, Franchi L, Mcnamara JA. An Improved Version of the Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) Method for the Assessment of Mandibular Growth. Angle Orthod 2002;72:316–323.

O’brien K, Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 2: Psychosocial effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:488-95.

Faltin KJ., Faltin RM., Baccetti T., Franchi L., Ghlozzi B., Mcnamara JA Jr. long term effectiveness and treatment timing for bionator therapy. Angle Orthod. 2003 Jun;73(3):221- 30

Wong RW, Alkhal HA. and Rabie BA. Use of cervical vertebral maturation to determine skeletal age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:484.e1-484.e6.

Vijayalakshim P, Veershi A. management of severe class II malocclusion with fixed functional appliance: forsus. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011 May 1;12(3):216-20.

Ballrick J.W., Fields H.W., F. Beck F.M., Sun Z. Germak J. The cervical vertebrae staging method's reliability in detecting pre and post mandibular growth, Orthodontic Waves,(2013)72:3, 105-111.

Thiruvenkatachari B., Harrison J., Worthington H., O'Brien K. Early orthodontic treatment for Class II malocclusion reduces the chance of incisal trauma: Results of a Cochrane systematic review Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:47-59.

Montasser M., Viana G., Evans C. Secular trends in the timing of skeletal maturation as assessed by the cervical vertebrae maturation method. Eur J Orthod, Volume 39, Issue 2, 1 April 2017: 188–193.

Botkin, D. B. and Keller, E. A. Nuclear energy and the environment. In: Environmental Science. 3rd Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 2000: 366-382.

MARION J.B. Physics in the Modern World (Second Edition), 1981.

Michael F. L'Annunziata. Radioactivity: introduction and history, 2007.

Haque, S.; Takinami, S.; Watari, F.; Khan, M. H. and Nakamura, M. Radiation effects of carbon ions and gamma ray on UDMA based dental resin. Dent mater J. 2001: 20(4): 325-338.

Oral, E.; Christensen, S. D.; Malhi, A. S.; Wannomae, K. K. and Muratoglu, O. K. (2006): Wear resistance and mechanical properties of highly crosslinked UHMWPE doped with Vitamin-E. J arthroplasty; 21(4): 580–591.

An Overview of Basic Radiation Effects on Polymers and Glasses. SAND2013-8003P.

Winkler S. Denture base resins. Dent Clin North Am 1984;. 28:287-97. 10

Alwan T.J. Effects of gamma radiation on the physical properties of PAni.MWCNT/PMMA films.

Murray, J. A.; Bruels, M. C. and Lindberg, R. D. Irradiation of Polymethylmethacrylate: In Vitro Gamma Radiation. J bone joint surg am; 1974; 56(2): 311-312.

Behr, M.; Rosentritt, M.; Faltermeier, A. and Handel, G. Electron beam irradiation of denture base materials. J mater sci mater med 2005; 16(2): 175-181.

Ferreira, F. G. D., Lima, M. A. G. de A., Almeida, Y. M. B. de, & Vinhas, G. M. Effect of the radiolitic sterilization in polyethylene/starch blends. Quím. Nova, 2008; 31(5), 1043– 1047.

Moorrees, Coenraad F. A.; Kean, Martin R. Natural head position, a basic consideration in the interpretation of cephalometric radiographs. Am J Physical Anthropology. 1958; 16(2):213-224.

Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications; 1940. Br Med J. 1940 Sep 14; 2(4158): 358–359.

Suryasa, W. (2019). Historical Religion Dynamics: Phenomenon in Bali Island. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(6), 1679-1685.