Skip Navigation



The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access published online on February 14, 2008
The European Journal of Orthodontics, doi:10.1093/ejo/cjm121
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/2/128    most recent
cjm121v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Varlik, S. K.
Right arrow Articles by Tümer, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Varlik, S. K.
Right arrow Articles by Tümer, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile

Selin Kale Varlik*, Ali Gültan* and Nazli Tümer**

* Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University
** Private Practice, Ankara, Turkey

Address for correspondence, Selin Kale Varlik, Gazi Universitesi Dis Hekimligi Fakultesi, Ortodonti ABD, 8.Cadde, 82. Sokak, No. 4, 06510 Emek Ankara, Turkey, E-mail: kaleselin{at}yahoo.com


  Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of activator and Twin Block (TB) appliances on the soft tissue profile. The study included 50 skeletal Class II patients (25 girls and 25 boys, mean age: 11.9 ± 0.16 years) who were randomly allocated to one of two functional appliance treatment groups. The control group included 25 untreated skeletal Class II patients (13 boys and 12 girls, mean age: 10.11 ± 0.91 years). Data were obtained from standardized lateral cephalograms taken at the beginning (T0) and end (T1) of appliance wear. The mean treatment time was 9 months for the activator group and 8 months for the TB group. The observation period of the control group was 8 months. Soft tissue profile changes were evaluated by means of 12 linear and five angular measurements. The groups were compared at T0 and T1 using analysis of variance, and treatment/observation differences (T1–T0) were evaluated with the Kruskal–Wallis test.

Treatment changes in both appliance groups differed significantly (P ≤ 0.001) from those in the control group, except for Ss–y, Ls–y, Li–E, and A–y measurements in the TB group and Ls–y, Li–E, nasolabial angle, and A–y measurements in the activator group. When the effects of the two appliances were compared, significant differences were observed only for SS–y (P ≤ 0.05), Ss–E (P ≤ 0.05), Si–E (P ≤ 0.05), and nasolabial angle (P ≤ 0.01). The effects of the activator and TB appliances on the soft tissue profile were similar; both significantly changed the soft tissue profile.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.