Rency Annie Abraham; Shobha Sundareswaran
Abstract
Objectives: Aim of this study was to do a comparative post-treatment assessment, using three superimposition methods (Ricketts, Pancherz and Centrographic), in patients with Angle’s Class II Division 1 malocclusion and functional retrusion of mandible following twin block appliance therapy.
Methods: ...
Read More
Objectives: Aim of this study was to do a comparative post-treatment assessment, using three superimposition methods (Ricketts, Pancherz and Centrographic), in patients with Angle’s Class II Division 1 malocclusion and functional retrusion of mandible following twin block appliance therapy.
Methods: In this retrospective cross sectional study, pre and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs of 33 cases were analyzed and compared using Ricketts, Pancherz and Centrographic superimposition methods. Changes were evaluated quantitatively for all three methods using a reference grid. The anteroposterior position of upper and lower centroids with respect to the centroid plane was evaluated. Results: Paired samples t-tests and intraclass correlation coefficient revealed excellent reliability of Ricketts, Pancherz and Centrographic superimposition techniques for all parameters. An advancement of 4.14 + 2.24 and 4.18 + 2.26 in Pancherz, 4.30 + 2.14 and 4.38 + 2.18 in Ricketts and 4.36 + 2.19 and 4.50 + 2.19 in Centrographic superimposition methods was shown by point B and pogonion respectively. The observed advancement of Point B and restriction of mesial movement of upper first molar (U6) was statistically significant for Centrographic method as compared to Pancherz. Advancement of lower centroid was seen in all cases with 72.7% in level with centroid plane and 24.2% within 1mm of it.
Conclusions: All three superimposition methods (Ricketts, Pancherz and Centrographic) proved equally reliable in assessing treatment changes following twin block therapy. Forward movement of lower centroid was observed in 100% of the cases indicating true mandibular advancement following twin block appliance therapy in Skeletal Class II Division 1 malocclusions.
Ankita Ashok Sawant; Shubhangi Ameet Mani
Abstract
Background: It is generally believed that a straight profile is more attractive than a convex class II or concave class III profiles, however, there are certain gender differences, as slightly convex facial profiles are considered attractive in females, while straighter profiles are preferred in males.
Objectives: ...
Read More
Background: It is generally believed that a straight profile is more attractive than a convex class II or concave class III profiles, however, there are certain gender differences, as slightly convex facial profiles are considered attractive in females, while straighter profiles are preferred in males.
Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare facial profile attractiveness changes of patients treated with twin block appliance assessed by orthodontist and other dental specialist.
Patients and Methods: The patient sample comprised 10 patients who undergo orthodontics treatment with Twin Block appliance. Triplets of facial profile photographs of the patients were randomly divided into two sets (before T0, after treatment T1). Two groups selected: 10 orthodontist and 10 dental specialist from different other branches (Excluding oral maxillofacial surgeons) in rural dental college were selected. Each judge independently ranked both sets of photographs using visual analog scale (VAS) with an interval of 1 week between ratings.
Results: On average, both orthodontists and other dental specialist found an improvement in facial profile attractiveness through Twin Block appliances treatment (VAS- T0 - T1 = 1.4 ± 3.2 cm). However, the individual perception of attractiveness varied greatly in the two groups. For time periods (T0- T1), lower VAS ratings were given by other specialist than by orthodontists.
Conclusions: Other dental specialist rated facial profiles more critically than orthodontist. Twin block therapy in patients generally improves profile attractiveness, which is appreciated by all dentists.
