|
Home
Search
Study Topics
Glossary
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sponsor: | University of Manchester |
|---|---|
| Collaborators: |
UoM NHS |
| Information provided by: | University of Manchester |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT00957489 |
Purpose
Twin-Block treatment and Dynamax treatment for Class II division 1 malocclusion do not have different effects with regards to treatment duration, the quality of dento-occlusal outcome, skeletal and soft tissue profile, patient discomfort and gingival health.
| Condition | Intervention |
|---|---|
|
Class Ii Division 1 Malocclusion |
Other: Dynamax appliance Other: Twin-block appliance |
| Study Type: | Interventional |
| Study Design: | Treatment, Randomized, Open Label, Active Control, Parallel Assignment |
| Enrollment: | 64 |
| Study Start Date: | January 2007 |
| Study Completion Date: | September 2008 |
| Primary Completion Date: | September 2008 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) |
| Arms | Assigned Interventions |
|---|---|
| Functional appliance: Experimental | Other: Dynamax appliance Other: Twin-block appliance |
The Dynamax appliance is a relatively new appliance for the treatment of Class II malocclusion and was introduced in 2003. The appliance has the theoretical advantages of incremental mandibular advancement without the need for bite registration, and the ability for the operator to simultaneously provide the functional and fixed appliance phases of treatment. Furthermore, the Dynamax appliance is designed to limit lower both lower incisor proclination and upper incisor retroclination without an increase in lower facial height. There has been limited research into this appliance and only one trial has been carried out. In this study the effects of the Dynamax were compared with the Twin-block, unfortunately, the trial was not carried out to contemporary standards and suffered from severe shortcomings. For example, the non compliance rate was not accounted for in the sample size calculation, the randomisation sequence was not clear, the investigators did not carry out an intention-to-treat analysis, the statistical analysis was simplistic and the study was carried out in a single dental school setting. This raises the question about the efficiency of the Dynamax appliance and whether or not they are effective in a 'real' world setting.
The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the Dynamax appliance and the Twin-block appliance for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
Eligibility| Ages Eligible for Study: | 10 Years to 14 Years |
| Genders Eligible for Study: | Both |
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | Yes |
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Contacts and Locations| United Kingdom | |
| Chesterfield Royal Hospital | |
| Chesterfield, United Kingdom | |
| Derby Royak Hospital NHS Trust | |
| Derby, United Kingdom | |
| Principal Investigator: | Kevin O'Brien, BDS, MSc, FDSRCS, DORth, PhD | Prof of Orthodontics/ Associate Dean Teaching and Learning, University of Manchester |
| Principal Investigator: | Jonathan Sandler, BDS, MSc, FDSRCS, MOrth RCS | Consultant Orthodontist, Chesterfield NHS Trust |
| Principal Investigator: | Alison Murray, BDS, MSc, FDSRCS, MORth RCS | Consultant Orthodontist, Derby NHS Trust |
| Study Director: | Badri ` Thiruvenkatachari, BDS, MDS, MOrth RCS, PhD | Clinical Teaching Fellow in Orthodontics, University of Manchester |
More Information
| Responsible Party: | University of Manchester ( Kevin O'Brien ) |
| Study ID Numbers: | DTT project |
| Study First Received: | August 11, 2009 |
| Last Updated: | August 11, 2009 |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT00957489 History of Changes |
| Health Authority: | United Kingdom: National Health Service |
|
Orthodontic treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion |
|
Tooth Diseases Malocclusion Stomatognathic Diseases |