Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2021; 10(03): 170-175
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736379
Review Article

Treatment of Class II Malocclusion With Removable Functional Appliances: A Narrative Review

Saima Nizar Hirji 
1   Department of Orthodontics, The Dental Centre, Nairobi, Kenya
,
Irfan Qamruddin
2   Department of Orthodontic, Sindh Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan
,
Muhammad Adeel Mudassar
3   Department of Orthodontics, Dr. Ishrat Ul Ibad Khan Institute of Oral Health Sciences, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan
,
Zohaib Khurshid 
4   Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Implantology, College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, KSA, Saudi Arabia
,
Mohammad Khursheed Alam
5   Department of Orthodontic, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka, Aljouf, KSA, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Around half of all malocclusions that need orthodontic treatment are Class II in nature. Patients with Class II malocclusion primarily seek treatment for aesthetic improvement. Most of the skeletal class II malocclusions are because of mandibular deficiency, and can be best treated during the growing phase of development by removable functional appliances. The objective of this review is to evaluate and compare skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of various removable functional appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Manual and electronic databases were searched, and out of 5,711 articles, 221 abstracts were shortlisted and reviewed. A total of 19 articles that fulfilled the selection criteria was then retrieved and analyzed. A significant increase in mandibular length and dentoalveolar effects with an increase in vertical dimension in a short time was observed with Twin-Block appliance treatment, followed by Bionator appliance treatment. The long-term stability of results achieved with Twin-Block appliance treatment is still questionable. In addition, Frankel appliance treatment effects are more skeletal in nature, with better control in the vertical dimension. However, it takes a more extended treatment duration to produce similar effects. Based on available evidence, we are convinced that removable functional appliances are valuable tools for correction of the Class II malocclusion at a growing age with a horizontal growth pattern.

Keywords

removable functional appliance - twin block - monoblock appliance - Class II malocclusion and occlusal adjustment


Publication History

Article published online:
18 October 2021

© 2021. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Graber TM, Moss ML, Aronson SL, Enlow DH. Introduction. In: Graber TM, Rakosi T, Petrovic AG. eds. Dentofacial Orthopedics With Functional Appliances. USA: Mosby; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 2 McNamara Jr JA. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981; 51 (03) 177-202
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Martyn TC, Andrew TD. Handbook of Orthodontics. 8th ed.. USA: Mosby; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Charlier JP, Petrovic A, Herrmann-Stutzmann J. Effects of mandibular hyperpropulsion on the prechondroblastic zone of young rat condyle. Am J Orthod 1969; 55 (01) 71-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McNamara Jr JA, Bryan FA. Long-term mandibular adaptations to protrusive function: an experimental study in Macaca mulatta. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 92 (02) 98-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Voudouris JC, Woodside DG, Altuna G. et al. Condyle-fossa modifications and muscle interactions during Herbst treatment, Part 2. Results and conclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124 (01) 13-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Robert JH, David SC. Regulation of growth in mandibular condylar cartilage. Semin Orthod 2005; 11: 209-218
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dolce C, McGorray SP, Brazeau L, King GJ, Wheeler TT. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132 (04) 481-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F. et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 2: Psychosocial effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124 (05) 488-494 , discussion 494–495
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tulloch JF, Proffit WR, Phillips C. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125 (06) 657-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Barton S, Cook PA. Predicting functional appliance treatment outcome in Class II malocclusions–a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112 (03) 282-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130 (05) 594-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mamandras AH, Allen LP. Mandibular response to orthodontic treatment with the Bionator appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97 (02) 113-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 McNamara Jr JA, Bookstein FL, Shaughnessy TG. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on class II patients. Am J Orthod 1985; 88 (02) 91-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schulhof RJ, Engel GA. Results of Class II functional appliance treatment. J Clin Orthod 1982; 16 (09) 587-599
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Eirew HL. The bionator. Br J Orthod 1981; 8 (01) 33-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Macey-Dare LV, Nixon F. Functional appliances: mode of action and clinical use. Dent Update 1999; 26 (06) 240-244 , 246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F. et al. Early treatment for Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the Twin-block appliance: a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135 (05) 573-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Trenouth MJ. Cephalometric evaluation of the Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117 (01) 54-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mills CM, McCulloch KJ. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118 (01) 24-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Saikoski LZ, Cançado RH, Valarelli FP, de Freitas KM. Dentoskeletal effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Twin Block appliance in a Brazilian sample: a prospective study. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19 (01) 36-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Singh GD, Clark WJ. Localization of mandibular changes in patients with class II division 1 malocclusions treated with twin-block appliances: finite element scaling analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119 (04) 419-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chintakanon K, Sampson W, Wilkinson T, Townsend G. A prospective study of Twin-block appliance therapy assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118 (05) 494-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dauravu LM, Vannala V, Arafath M, Singaraju GS, Cherukuri AS, Mathew A. The assessment of sagittal changes with twin block appliance in patients with decelerating growth phase. JCDR Bd 2014; 8 (12) ZC81-ZC84
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Perillo L, Johnston Jr LE, Ferro A. Permanence of skeletal changes after function regulator (FR-2) treatment of patients with retrusive Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 109 (02) 132-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Haynes S. A cephalometric study of mandibular changes in modified function regulator (Fränkel) treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986; 90 (04) 308-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Freeman DC, McNamara Jr JA, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Fränkel C. Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135 (05) 570.e1-570.e6 , discussion 570–571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Angelieri F, Franchi L, Cevidanes LH, Scanavini MA, McNamara Jr JA. Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance: a prospective evalution 7 years post-treatment. Eur J Orthod 2014; 36 (02) 192-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cevidanes LH, Franco AA, Scanavini MA, Vigorito JW, Enlow DH, Proffit WR. Clinical outcomes of Fränkel appliance therapy assessed with a counterpart analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123 (04) 379-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Weinbach JR, Smith RJ. Cephalometric changes during treatment with the open bite bionator. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 101 (04) 367-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Toth LR, McNamara Jr JA. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116 (06) 597-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 De Almeida MR, Henriques JF, Ursi W. Comparative study of the Fränkel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121 (05) 458-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dalci O, Altug AT, Memikoglu UT. Treatment effects of a twin-force bite corrector versus an activator in comparison with an untreated Class II sample: a preliminary report. Aust Orthod J 2014; 30 (01) 45-53
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tümer N, Gültan AS. Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116 (04) 460-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Marsico E, Gatto E, Burrascano M, Matarese G, Cordasco G. Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances on mandibular growth in the short term. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139 (01) 24-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Vaid NR, Doshi VM, Vandekar MJ. Class II treatment with functional appliances: A meta-analysis of short-term treatment effects. Semin Orthod 2014; 20: 324-338
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Nucera R, Lo Giudice A, Rustico L, Matarese G, Papadopoulos MA, Cordasco G. Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances on maxillary growth in the short term: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149 (05) 600-611.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Madurantakam P. Removable functional appliances effective in patients with Class II malocclusions. Evid Based Dent 2016; 17 (01) 27-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Koretsi V, Zymperdikas VF, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA. Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37 (04) 418-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bertl MH, Mandl C, Crismani AG. Do functional orthodontic appliances stimulate mandibular growth in class II division 1 patients. International journal of stomatology & occlusion medicine Bd 2011; 4 (02) 6-28
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Santamaría-Villegas A, Manrique-Hernandez R, Alvarez-Varela E, Restrepo-Serna C. Effect of removable functional appliances on mandibular length in patients with class II with retrognathism: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17 (01) 52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar