{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015503875968992248, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009161381254404511, 'mean_word_length': 5.311111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cephalometric comparison of treatment effects of Twin block and Bionator appliance with an untreated Class II sample

Objective: Skeletal class II malocclusion is commonly seen in the Indian clinical scenario among the growing population. In the background of newer functional appliances in recent times, Twin block and Bionator still remain widely used in clinical practice. Thus, a prospective clinical trial was designed to study various skeletal and dental effects of these appliances, as well as changes that occur in the control population. Materials and Methods: A sample size of 30 growing individuals with an age range of 9–14 years, showing class II division 1 malocclusion were selected. They were divided into three groups of 10 patients each, of which 10 were controls and 10 patients each for twin block and bionator groups. The average treatment duration was 6 months. Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after the treatment with functional appliances, and selected parameters were compared. Results: There were considerable skeletal and dental changes brought about by both the appliances when compared with controls, however, there were no significant differences in changes brought about by both the appliances when compared with each other. Conclusion: Both Twin block and Bionator appliances can be effectively used for the correction of skeletal class II malocclusion in growing individuals.