ANALISIS PENGGUNAAN TWIN BLOCK PADA PERAWATAN MALOKLUSI DENTOSKELETAL KELAS II DIVISI 1 DISERTAI RETROGNATI MANDIBULA BERDASARKAN CERVICAL VERTEBRAL MATURATION STAGE


(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: 10.30659/odj.5.2.131-138
Background:Class II division 1 dentoskeletal malocclusion with mandibular

retrognatic can be treated with twin block appliance. The objectives of this study
are to analyse twin block appliance based on mandibular dimension and anterior
facial height changes, and to determined the most effective time base on CVMS
to begin the treatment.
Method: The type of research was a retrospective analysis study using
secondary data. The sample was 14 lateral cephalometric radiographs before
and after treatment with twin block appliance. It was taken in IKGA RSGM FKG
UNPAD 2010 to 2016. Statistic analysis used paired t-test.
Results: Study shows that there is a significant change (p<0.05) in mandibular
dimension and anterior facial height after treatment with twin block appliance.
Changes in mandibular dimension including total mandibular length, mandibular
body length, ramus height, and gonial angle. Changes in anterior facial height
including lower anterior facial height and total anterior facial height. The CVMS
III group showed statistically significant result with the biggest improvement.
Conclusion: The use of twin block appliance in Class II division 1 dentoskeletal
malocclusion with mandibular retrognatic could change mandibular dimension
and anterior facial height. Apart from that, CVMS III was found to be the most
effective time to start the treatment with twin block appliance

Keywords: Class II division 1 dentoskeletal malocclusion with mandibular retrognatic, twin block, mandibular dimension, anterior facial height, cervical vertebral maturation stage (CVMS)

  1. Šidlauskas A, Žilinskaitė L, Švalkauskienė V. Mandibular Pubertal Growth Spurt Prediction. Part One: Method Based on the Hand-Wrist Radiographs. Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal. 2005;7:16-20.
  2. Valizadeh S, Eil N, Ehsani S, Bakhshandeh H. Correlation Between Dental and Cervical Vertebral Maturation in Iranian Female. Iranian Journal of Radiology. 2013;10(1):1-7.
  3. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. An Improved Version of the Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) Method for the Assessment of Mandibular Growth. Angle Orthodontist. 2002;72(4):159-70.
  4. Saptarini R, Gartika M, Runkat J. Penggunaan Twin Blok pada Perawatan Maloklusi kelas II Angle Anak-anak. Indonesian Journal of Dentistry. 2005;12(2):50-4.
  5. Wijayanti P, Krisnawati, Ismah N. Gambaran maloklusi dan kebutuhan perawatan ortodonti pada anak usia 9-11 tahun (Studi pendahuluan di SD At-Taufiq, Cempaka Putih, Jakarta. Jurnal PDGI. 2014;63(1):25-9.
  6. McNamara J, Bookstein F, Shaughnessys T. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on Class II patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1985;88:91-110.
  7. McNamara JA, Brudon WL. Orthodontic and Orthopedic Treatment in the Mixed Dentition. United States of America: Needham Press; 1993.86-9.
  8. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118 159-70.
  9. Clark WJ. Twin Block Functional Therapy - Applications in Dentofacial Orthopedics. 3rd edition. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2015: 6-18.
  10. Ireland AJ, McDonald F. The Orthodontic Patient : Treatment and Biomechanics.
  11. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 2003: 89-109.
  12. Jena AK. Effectiveness of twin block and mandibular protraction appliance-IV in the improvement of pharyngeal airway passage dimension in class II malocclusion subjects with a retrognatic mandible. Angle J orthodontics. 2013;83:728-43.
  13. Graber T, Rakosi T, ADento-facial Orthopedics with Functional Appliances. St Louis: Mosby; 1997.
  14. Jamilian A, Rahman S. Treatment effect of the R-appliance and twin block in class II division 1 malocclusion. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2011;33:354-8.
  15. Mathew T. Management of skeletal class II malocclusion with twin block and fixed appliance for 12- year-old. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences 2013;28:650-6.
  16. Al-Hadlaq A, Al-Qarni M, Al-Kahtani A, Al-Obaid A. Comparative Study Between Hand-Wrist Method And Cervical Vertebral Maturation Method For Evaluation Of Skeletal Maturity In Saudi Boys. Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal 2002;27(2):27-32.
  17. Alhadlaq AM, Al-Shayea EI. New method for evaluation of cervical vertebral maturation based on angular measurements. Saudi Med J. 2012;33(4):388-94.
  18. Al-Anezi SA. Class II malocclusion treatment using combined Twin Block and fixed orthodontic appliances – A case report. The Saudi Dental Journal 2011;23:43-51.
  19. O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F. Early treatment with the twin block appliance is effective in reducing overjet and severity of malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:234-43.
  20. Patel B, Baswaraj H, Tandur AP, Agrawal C, Chokshi H, Mahida K. Class II correction using twin block appliance: A case report. International Journal of Contemporary Dentistry 2015;6:4-6.
  21. Fareen N, Alam M, Khamis M. The efficcacy of twin block as functional appliance : An overview. Int J Pharm Bio Sci. 2015;6(3):1066-75.
  22. Singh M, Vashisth P, Chaundhary S, Sinha A. Early treatment outcomes of class II malocclusion with twin block facial profile and cephalometric change. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Researc. 2012;2(1):61-6.
  23. Singh G, Clark W. Localization of mandibular changes in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion treated with twin block appliances : Finite element scaling analysis. J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119:419-25.
  24. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara J. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. 2005:1-5.
  25. Å idlauskas A. Clinical Effectiveness of the Twin Block Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Division 1 Malocclusion. Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal. 2005;7:7-10.
  26. Sander D. Use of CVM stages in assessment of young orthodontic patients to estimate growth potential. Tennessee: The University of Tennessee; 2009:87-8.
  27. Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNAmara J. Mandibular growth as related to cervical vertebral maturation and body height Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118:335-40.
  28. Diaz PA, Ruz GA, Palomino HM. Discovering craniofacial patterns using multivariate cephalometric data for treatment decision making in orthodontics. International Journal of Morphology. 2013;31(3):1109-15.
  29. Baysal A, Uysal T. Dentoskeletal effects of twin block and Herbst appliances in patients with class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2013:10-6.
  30. Wang MF, Otsuka T, Sato S. Vertical facial height and its correlationn with facial width and depth. International Journal of Stomatology and Occlusion Medicine. 2013;6:120-9.
  31. Quintao C, Helena I, Brunharo V, Menezes R, Almeida M. Soft tissue facial profile changes following functional appliance therapy. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2006;28(1):35-41.

Lisensi Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
Contact us: Odonto Dental Journal: Jl. Raya Kaligawe Km.4, PO BOX 1054/SM Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia, 50112. Email: odontodentaljournal@unissula.ac.id
apps