Dentoalveolar, skeletal, pharyngeal airway, cervical posture, hyoid bone position, and soft palate changes with Myobrace and Twin-block: a retrospective study

Abstract

Abstract Background The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the dentoalveolar, skeletal, pharyngeal airway, cervical posture, hyoid bone position, and soft palate effects of the Myobrace and Twin-block appliances. The second was to compare them in terms of ease of use by assessing the factors that may influence patient compliance. Methods The study included thirty-six Class II division 1 patients (19 females, 17 males; mean age, 12.14 ± 1.23) who had previously been treated in the Orthodontic Clinic at Sivas Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1: Myobrace (n = 18), and Group 2: twin block (n = 18). The effects of the appliances on the skeletal, dentoalveolar, soft tissue, craniocervical, and other anatomic structures were assessed using 46 measurements (22 linear and 24 angular), on pre and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs. AudaxCeph 5.0 software (Ljubljana, Slovenia) was used for the analysis. To analyze the changes after one year of treatment, a paired sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used. Intergroup comparison was performed using the Student t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Results In the Myobrace and Twin-block groups, there was a significant increase in SNB (°) (p = 0.004, p = 0.001), IMPA (°) (p = 0.005, p = 0.001) and a significant drop in U1/SN (°) (p = 0.021, p = 0.005). The lengths of Cd–Gn (mm), Go–Pg (mm), and Cd–Go (mm) increased significantly in the Twin-block group (p = 0.003, p = 0.010, p = 0.001), whereas the Myobrace group did not change. Similarly, there was no significant difference in pharyngeal and soft palate measurements in the Myobrace group but a statistically significant decrease in SP length and angle in the Twin-block group (p = 0.001, p = 0.006). Increases in SN/OPT (°) (p = 0.032, p = 0.001) and SN/CVT (°) (p = 0.012, p = 0.001) were statistically significant in both groups. Myobrace was more difficult to use while sleeping, whereas the twin block caused more nausea. Conclusions Both appliances can be used for mandibular advancement. The Twin-block appliance, on the other hand, was more effective and patient-friendly.

Keywords

• Functional orthodontic appliances
• Myobrace
• Twin-block
• Class II div 1 malocclusion