| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Clinical Section |
Department of Orthodontics, Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust, Callow, Derbyshire, UK
F. M. V. Dyer, Department of Orthodontics, Chesterfield & North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust, Calow, Derbyshire, UK (Email: dyer.sheffield{at}virgin.net).
Abstract
Two case reports illustrate the effective treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion with modifications to the Twin Block appliance. This approach may reduce the total treatment time and reduce the need for extra-oral anchorage. In each of the cases presented treatment has been carried out on a non-extraction basis with full correction of the malocclusion.
Key words: Class II division 2 malocclusion, Class II skeletal base, Functional appliance, Modified Twin Blocks
Literature review
The Class II division 2 malocclusion is a clinical entity, which presents considerable difficulty in the provision of a stable result (Selwyn Barnett, 1991). The success of treatment lies in correction of the transverse, anterior-posterior and vertical discrepancies. Furthermore, the importance of correcting the inter-incisal angle and edge centroid relationship is paramount for stability (Houston and Tulley, 1993
). In order to achieve this Houston (1989) stated that it is essential to reduce the inter-incisal angle towards 125 degrees, bringing the lower incisor tip anterior to the upper incisor centroid. This is also evident from the results of an earlier study of 60 treated patients by Mills (1973) who concluded that stability was dependent on satisfactory reduction of the inter-incisal angle and the overbite.
The need for expansion and limited proclination of the lower incisors during treatment of Class II division 2 cases has been demonstrated by Selwyn Barnett (1991, 1996). He also recommended that treatment should commence early in the mixed dentition, using headgear and upper removable appliances to start buccal segment correction and overbite reduction. Upper and lower fixed appliances are then placed, and treatment usually carried out on a non-extraction basis.
Traditionally, treatment of an actively growing Class II division 2 patient with a moderate or severe skeletal discrepancy has involved proclining the upper labial segment, thereby, converting the incisal relationship to Class II division 1 malocclusion. This has, commonly, been achieved by using an upper removable appliance, for example, an Expansion and Labial Segment Alignment Appliance (ELSAA; Figure 1). This is then followed by a phase of functional appliance treatment is provided to correct any sagittal discrepancy.
|
Studies comparing consecutively treated cases with the Twin Block appliance and control groups (Lund and Sandler, 1998; Mills and McCulloch, 1998; Trenmouth, 2000) demonstrated small, but significant increases in mandibular length. However, the majority of overjet correction occurring by dentoalveolar movement. Trenmouth (2000) suggests that the variation in the degree of incisal changes produced by the Twin Block appliances used in these studies is due to the differences in the clinical design of the appliances used.
Studies comparing the Twin Block appliance to other functional appliances (Illing et al., 1998; Toth and McNamara, 1999) demonstrated that compared to the Bass appliance, Bionator and Frankel, Twin Blocks appear to be the most effective in producing sagittal and vertical changes. These changes are achieved through mandibular skeletal and dentoalveolar changes in addition to normal growth.
There are no reports in the literature of the use of Twin Blocks in the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions. This paper demonstrates that a modified Twin Block appliance can be successfully used to treat Class II division 2 malocclusions from the outset. This avoids the need for an initial period of upper labial segment alignment, which would increase the overall length of treatment. Sagittal correction of the malocclusion is initiated alongside the correction of the retroclined upper labial segment.
Patient selection and bite registration
Patients who may be considered for this modified Twin Block technique are those with a Class II division 2 incisor relationship on a moderate Class II skeletal base with an ANB of 6–9 degrees. The buccal segment relationship should ideally be at least half a unit Class II and the patient should have potential for further facial growth. Cephalometric analysis is carried out to confirm that the lower incisors can be proclined during treatment of the malocclusion. The axial inclination of the upper incisors is corrected initially by labial tipping and this corrected inclination is maintained during further correction of the malocclusion.
The bite registration is taken with the buccal segment relationship in an over corrected position, this may result in an edge-to-edge incisor position or a slight reversed overjet. However, by ensuring that there is 7–8 mm of separation in the buccal segments, there should be no incisal interference as the upper labial segment is proclined. It is also essential to have sufficient height of the blocks to ensure that the patient is more comfortable posturing forwards than closing in centric relation.
The appliance design
Both appliances are modifications of the Clark Twin Block (Clark, 1982). They have Adams clasps on maxillary and mandibular first molars and first premolars (maxillary canines in the first case), and ball ended clasps on the lower labial segment. The upper block contains a midline expansion screw. The inclined planes are constructed at 70 degrees to the occlusal plane. Advancement, if required is carried out by the addition of small acrylic tablets to the upper block. The additional modifications for each case are detailed as follows:
); ), followed by bonding of the upper labial segment with pre-adjusted Edgewise fixed appliances.
|
|
A 13÷-year-old female was referred by her GDP. She presented with a Class II division 2 incisal relationship on a moderate Class II skeletal base, with mandibular retrognathia. All permanent teeth were present; however, the upper left second deciduous molar was retained. There was mild crowding in the labial segments. In occlusion the overbite was 10 mm and, complete, the overjet was 5 mm. The buccal segment relationship was a full unit Class II bilaterally. The cephalometric tracing confirmed that the patient had a moderate Class II skeletal base relationship with an ANB value of 8•0 degrees; the mandibular planes angle was 22•5 degrees. The upper incisors were retroclined at 74•5 degrees, with the lower incisors retroclined at 89•0 degrees. The inter-incisal angle was174 degrees (Figure 4).
|
).
|
Antero-posterior correction of the buccal segments was achieved after 8 months full time wear, at which stage the upper incisors had been proclined by 18•0 degrees and the ANB reduced by 3 degrees. Superimposition revealed mandibular changes in a horizontal and vertical direction, with an increase in lower anterior face height of 7•5 mm (Figure 6).
|
). During the transition into fixed appliances an inclined clip over bite plane was worn full time, until upper and lower 0•019 x 0•025-inch stainless steel archwires were in place and correction of the lateral open bites by buccal segment eruption was achieved. A fully bonded pre-adjusted Edgewise appliance (Figure 8) was fitted to produce a mutually protected functional occlusion (Figure 9). Total treatment time was 38 months with a reduction in the PAR score from 33 to 2.
|
|
|
; Table 1).
|
|
Case report 2 (TD)
A 14-year-old male was referred by his dentist who was concerned about the appearance of his upper incisors. He presented with a Class II division 2 incisor relationship on a moderate Skeletal II base with mandibular retrognathia. He had a full complement of teeth with mild crowding of the upper and lower labial segments. In occlusion the overbite was 10 mm and, complete to hard tissue, the overjet was 2 mm. The buccal segment relationship was half a unit Class II on the right and a full unit Class II on the left (Figure 11). Cephalometric analysis confirmed a moderate Class II skeletal pattern with mandibular retrognathia and an ANB of 8•5 degrees. The mandibular planes angle was reduced at 17•5 degrees and the upper incisors retroclined at 80 degrees.
|
). Following excellent patient co-operation the upper labial segment was proclined and the buccal segment relationship was overcorrected in 15 months. This was confirmed cephalometrically with a 5-degree reduction in ANB due to an increase in SNB and proclination of the upper labial segment by 27•5 degrees (Figure 13).
|
|
). After 15 months of twin block therapy full pre-adjusted Edgewise appliances were placed (Figure 15).
|
|
). Treatment was completed in 34 months with a change in PAR score from 45 to 2.
|
; Table 2)
|
|
There are obvious advantages of treating Class II division 2 patients with one removable functional appliance prior to fixed appliance therapy. Treatment time may be significantly reduced by eliminating a pre-functional phase of treatment. As advancement of the upper labial segment occurs simultaneously with sagittal correction the patient should never have an increased overjet placing them at risk of trauma due to prominent upper incisors. This technique also prevents patients being left with an increased overjet if they fail to comply with the functional phase following upper incisor proclination.
Various additions to the upper Twin Block are available for proclination of the upper incisors. In these two cases an anterior screw with torquing spurs on the maxillary central incisors and a double cantilever spring have been used. However, T or Z springs could also be used to provide this movement. In the second case sectional fixed appliances were placed following fracture of the double cantilever spring. This works best when the lateral incisors are proclined and the central incisors retroclined, and allows immediate levelling and aligning of the upper labial segment. Placing light wires allows alignment, but no major torque effects would be expected at this stage. It also allows the patient to adjust to the upper fixed appliance and the clinician to monitor their effectiveness at oral hygiene measures. Placement of sectional fixed appliances proved to be extremely effective in the second case and the upper labial segment was proclined by 27•5 degrees from 80 degrees to 107•5 degrees. With sufficient retention of the Twin Blocks it would be possible to bond the labial segments from the outset and commence correction of their inclination early in treatment. The transition into fixed appliances is also enhanced as alignment has already occurred and progression through the archwires is quicker.
During treatment it is essential to take accurate measurements to monitor progress of the treatment. As upper incisor proclination is occurring concurrently with sagittal correction it is not possible to measure the overjet or reversed overjet accurately. Therefore, the buccal segment relationship should be recorded and also the separation of the blocks as the patient postures further forwards. Occasionally, it is not always possible to achieve the required sagittal correction without further advancement of the appliances. If this is required preformed acylic tablets of various dimensions may be bonded to the upper block with a fast setting cold-cure acrylic resin.
Success with this treatment result depends upon slight over-correction of the buccal segments (molars and canines) to a ‘super’ Class I, which builds anchorage into the system prior to placement of the fixed appliances and allows for slight rebound. Class II correction is maintained with an inclined clip over bite plane, during the transition to fixed appliances. Lateral open bite reduction is commenced in the Twin Block phase by removal of the lower Adams clasps and judicious trimming of the upper blocks. Any residual open bites, characteristically seen at the end of the functional phase, will correct by buccal segment eruption during the levelling and aligning phase. In these two cases, we found no need for seating/box elastics to aid this differential eruption.
Conclusions
Modification of the Twin Block appliance to provide active labial segment proclination, has eliminated the need for a pre-functional phase of treatment. This useful technique has proved to be efficient and effective in the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions.
References
Clark, W. J. (1982) The Twin Block traction technique, European Journal of Orthodontics, 4, 129–138.
Houston, W. (1989) Incisor edge-centroid relationship and overbite depth, European Journal of Orthodontics, 11, 139–143.
Houston, W. and Tulley, J. (1993)A Textbook of Orthodontics,Wright, Bristol.
Illing, H. M., Morris, D. O. and Lee, R. T. (1998) A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part 1—the hard tissues, European Journal of Orthodontics, 20, 501–516.
Lund, D. I. and Sandler, P. J. (1998) The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, 113, 104–110.
Mills, C. M. and McCulloch, K. J. (1998) Treatment effects of the Twin Block appliance: a cephalometric study, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, 114, 15–21.
Mills, J. R. E. (1973) The problem of overbite in Class II division 2 malocclusion, British Journal of Orthodontics, 1, 34–48.[Medline]
Selwyn-Barnet, B. J. (1991) Rationale of treatment for Class II division 2 malocclusion, British Journal of Orthodontics, 18, 173–181.[Abstract]
Selwyn-Barnet, B. J. (1996) Class II division 2 malocclusion: a method of planning and treatment, British Journal of Orthodontics, 23, 29–36.[Abstract]
Toth, L. R. and McNamara, J. A. (1999) Treatment effects 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 Orthopaedics, 116, 597–609.
Trenmouth, M. J. (2000) Cephalometric evaluation of the Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, 117, 54–59.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. I. Lowe Contemporary treatment of a crowded Class II division 1 case J. Orthod., June 1, 2003; 30(2): 119 - 126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
