comparison between treatment time of magnetic twin block and conventional twin block in treatment of growing patient with short mandible.
Not Applicable
Completed
- Conditions
- Health Condition 1: K088- Other specified disorders of teethand supporting structures
- Registration Number
- CTRI/2020/03/024096
- Lead Sponsor
- Self
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- Completed
- Sex
- Not specified
- Target Recruitment
- 45
Inclusion Criteria
Clinically:
1.No previous history of any orthodontic treatment.
2.Each subject with a full cusp class II or end-on molar relationship bilaterally with convex facial profile.
3.The overjet should not be less than 5mm.
4.VTO improved with anterior positioning of mandible.
Radiographically:
1.ANB angle more than 4 degree with favorable functional analysis and favorable growth pattern.
2.Subjects who are at accelerated phase of pubertal growth spurt (CVMI stage-3, MP3-FG and MP3- G stage).
Exclusion Criteria
Discrepancy
1.Class I due to Tooth Size Arch Length
2.Excess Lower anterior face height
3.Proclined mandibular incisors.
4.Non-growing individuals
5.Syndromic cases
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method To evaluate the treatment time of Magnetic Twin Block and Conventional Twin Block in treatment of growing patients with skeletal class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrognathism.Timepoint: treatment duration of magnetic twin block is more/less or equally effective than conventional twin block.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method To analyze cephalometrically the skeletal and dental effects of Magnetic Twin Block and Conventional Twin Block with control group.Timepoint: effectiveness of cephalometric changes with magnetic twin block than conventional twin block.