Comparison of cephalometric measurements of the Twin Block and A6 appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a retrospective comparative cohort study.

Abstract

BackgroundSkeletal Class II malocclusion is a common malocclusion that seriously affects patients’ profile and occlusal function. The key to treatment is to use functional appliances guide the mandible forward. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of traditional functional appliance Twin Block (TB) and invisible functional appliance (A6).MethodsIn the retrospective cohort study, 46 patients with Class II Division 1 mandibular retrognathia (23 females, 23 males; mean age 13.66±4.25 years) from the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were selected. They were divided into A6 group and TB group according to the type of appliance guided mandibular forward used in orthodontic treatment (n=23 each; average treatment time 9.82±3.52 months). Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and at the end of each treatment, and paired t-test or paired rank-sum tests were performed when appropriate to detect any statistical significance at the level of α=0.05.ResultsThe baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients were similar. Treatment with both appliances helped correct Class II malocclusion, improve the discrepancy between the maxilla and mandible, reduce the labial inclination of the maxillary anterior teeth, and relieve the deep overbite. A comparison of the treatment effects of the TB and A6 groups showed that the A6 had a better effect when moving Point A backward, and performed better in the abduction of the anterior teeth. TB group has more advantages than A6 group in moving forward point B and improving the nasolabial angle.ConclusionsBoth the A6 and TB can significantly improve Class II malocclusion. A6 showed an obvious advantage in moving Point A backward and adducting the anterior teeth, which better corrects a skeletal Class II malocclusion.