Comparison of temporomandibular joint changes in Twin Block and Bionator appliance therapy: a magnetic resonance imaging study

Santosh J Chavan, Wasundhara A Bhad, Umal H Doshi, Santosh J Chavan, Wasundhara A Bhad, Umal H Doshi

Abstract

Background: The objective of the present study was to evaluate and compare temporomandibular joint changes especially disk-condyle-fossa relationship following functional treatment of skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion using Twin Block and Bionator appliances.

Methods: The total sample consisted of 30 subjects (13 males and 17 females) with class II division 1 malocclusion having mandibular retrognathism, in the age group of 9 to 14 years. Two treatment groups, i.e., Twin Block and Bionator groups, were formed which comprised ten subjects each, while a group of ten subjects served as the control group. The treatment effects were evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). For the treatment groups, pretreatment MRI with wax construction bite was taken. For all subjects, MRI images with corrected sagittal T1 images were recorded in a maximal intercuspation position at pretreatment (R1) and in an unstrained retruded position at the end of a 6-month observation period (R2).

Results: At the end of 6 months of treatment, the condyles occupied a more anterior position in the fossa to its pretreatment position, while the disk moved more posteriorly in relation to the condyle. The control group showed no changes in the condyle and disk position over a period of 6 months.

Conclusions: Although the treatment group showed consistent forward positioning of the condyle and backward movement of the disk, long-term MRI findings in these groups will further clarify the adaptations between the condyle fossa and articular disk.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Method of measuring sagittal concentricity.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Method of measuring sagittal disk position.

References

    1. Clark WJ. Twin Block Functional Therapy: Applications in Dentofacial Orthopedics. London: Mosby; 1995.
    1. Kaur H, Pavithra US, Abraham R. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in South Indian population. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2013;3(2):97–102. doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.122453.
    1. McNamara JA, Jr, Brudon WL. Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Ann Arbor: Needham Press; 2001. pp. 67–80.
    1. Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic AG. Dentofacial Orthopedics with Functional Appliances. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co.; 1985.
    1. Ghafari J, King GJ, Tulloch JF. Early treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusion—comparison of alternative treatment modalities. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1:107–17.
    1. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RTA. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I—the hard tissues. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:501–16. doi: 10.1093/ejo/20.5.501.
    1. O'Brien K, Wright JL, Conboy FM, Sanjie Y, Mandall NA, Chadwick S, Connolly I, Cook P, Birnie D, Hammond M, Harradine N, Lewis D, McDade C, Mitchell L, Murray A, O'Neill J, Read M, Robinson S, Roberts-Harry D, Sandler J, Shaw I. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:234–43. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00352-4.
    1. Araujo AM, Buschang PH, Melo AC. Adaptive condylar growth and mandibular remodelling changes with bionator therapy - an implant study. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:515–22. doi: 10.1093/ejo/26.5.515.
    1. Foucart JM, Pajoni D, Carpentier P, Pharaboz C. Temporomandibular joint: MR investigation of the effects of functional appliance in the treatment of class II malocclusions (IADR Abstracts) J Dent Res. 1998;77:882.
    1. Ruf S, Pancerz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;115:607–18. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70285-4.
    1. Pancherz H, Ruf S, Thomalske-Faubert C. Mandibular articular disk position changes during Herbst treatment: a prospective longitudinal MRI study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;116:207–14. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70219-2.
    1. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Does bite jumping damage the TMJ? A prospective longitudinal clinical and MRI study of Herbst patients. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:183–99.
    1. Chintakanon K, Sampson W, Wilkinson T, Townsend G. A prospective study of Twin-block appliance therapy assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;118:494–504. doi: 10.1067/mod.2000.109839.
    1. Arat ZM, Gokalp H, Erdem D, Erden I. Changes in the TMJ disk-condyle-fossa relationship following functional treatment of skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2001;119:316–9. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.110245.
    1. Pullinger AG, Solberg WK, Hollender L, Petersson A. Relationship of mandibular condylar position to dental occlusion factors in an asymptomatic population. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1987;91:200–6. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90447-1.
    1. Vargas-Pereira MR. Quantitative Auswertung bildgebender Verfahren und Entwicklung einer neuren metrischen Analyse for Kiefergelenkstrukturen in Magnetresonanztomogramm [thesis Dr Med Dent] Kiel (Germany): University of Kiel,; 1997.
    1. Drace JE, Enzmann DR. Defining the normal TMJ: closed-, partially open- and open-mouth MR imaging of asymptomatic subjects. Radiology. 1990;177:67–71. doi: 10.1148/radiology.177.1.2399340.
    1. Silverstein R, Dunn S, Binder R, Maganzini A. MRI assessment of the normal temporomandibular joint with the use of projective geometry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994;77:523–30. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(94)90236-4.
    1. Franco AA, Yamashita HK, Lederman HM, Cevidanes LHS, Proffit WR, Vigorito JW. Fränkel appliance therapy and the temporomandibular disc: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121:447–57. doi: 10.1067/mod.2002.122241.
    1. Ruf S, Wusten B, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint effects of activator treatment: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and clinical study. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:527–40.
    1. Arieta-Miranda JM, Silva-Valencia M, Flores-Mir C, Paredes-Sampen NA, Arriola-Guillen LE. Spatial analysis of condyle position according to sagittal skeletal relationship, assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod. 2013;14:36. doi: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-36.
    1. Vargervik K, Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment in class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod. 1985;88:242–51. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9416(85)90219-2.
    1. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Long-term TMJ effects of Herbst treatment: a clinical and MRI study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;114:475–83. doi: 10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70166-0.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅