Frankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A randomized clinical trial

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Ciara
dc.contributor.authorMillett, Declan
dc.contributor.authorKelly, Niamh
dc.contributor.authorCooke, Marie
dc.contributor.authorCronin, Michael
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-04T13:23:23Z
dc.date.available2021-10-04T13:23:23Z
dc.date.issued2020-10
dc.date.updated2021-10-04T12:30:08Z
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare Phase 1 treatment, using the Frankel 2 (FR2) or the modified Twin Block (MTB), for Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents with respect to: treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives. Materials and methods: Sixty participants with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were randomly assigned to either the FR2 or MTB appliance in a two-armed parallel randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1 to 1. Time to achieve a Class I incisor relationship was the primary outcome. The number of appliance breakages was recorded. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate pre- and post-treatment occlusal outcome on study models. Participants completed the child OHRQoL (oral health-related quality of life), Piers-Harris, Standard Continuum of Aesthetic Need (SCAN), and Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) questionnaires pre- and post-treatment; parents completed a SCAN questionnaire. Results: Forty-two participants completed treatment (FR2: 20; MTB: 22). Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data for noncompleters. Mean treatment duration was similar for the two appliances (FR2: 376 days [SD 101]; MTB: 340 days [SD 102]; P = .41). There were no significant differences in mean number of appliance breakages (FR2: 0.3 SD 0.7; MTB: 0.4 SD 0.8; P = .67 or mean PAR score P = .48). Patient and parent perspectives did not differ between appliances (P > .05). Conclusions: Phase 1 treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives were similar in 11-14 year olds with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated using the FR2 or MTB appliance.en
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.description.versionPublished Versionen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.citationCampbell, C., Millett, D., Kelly, N., Cooke, M. and Cronin, M. (2020) 'Frankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A randomized clinical trial', Angle Orthodontist, 90(2), pp. 202-208. doi: 10.2319/042419-290.1en
dc.identifier.doi10.2319/042419-290.1en
dc.identifier.eissn1945-7103
dc.identifier.endpage208en
dc.identifier.issn0003-3219
dc.identifier.issued2en
dc.identifier.journaltitleAngle Orthodontisten
dc.identifier.startpage202en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10468/12044
dc.identifier.volume90en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherThe EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.en
dc.rights© 2020, The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.en
dc.subjectClass II division 1 malocclusionen
dc.subjectFrankel applianceen
dc.subjectPhase 1 treatment durationen
dc.subjectTwin Block applianceen
dc.titleFrankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A randomized clinical trialen
dc.typeArticle (peer-reviewed)en
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
042419-290_1.pdf
Size:
256.76 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published Version
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Cork University Dental School and Hospital - Journal Articles