Aim of this study [it’s not a study] was to see the effect of twin block appliance. Twin block appliance from its inception and evolution itself has been widely accepted as a more competent Class II corrector compared to earlier bulky monoblock appliances. Functional appliances can be used successfully in growing patients with certain skeletal Class II patients. It is dependent on patient’s compliance. It also simplified the fixed appliance phase. In this case report a 11-year-old girl was treated with twin block appliance. The design of appliance and treatment results were demonstrated in following case report. With proper case selection and good patient cooperation, good appliance construction we can obtain a significant result with twin block appliance. The correction was due to dentoalveolar change, but some was due to favourable skeletal change. Early treatment with the twin-block appliance is effective in reducing overjet and severity of malocclusion.

1. O’brien k, Wright j, conboy f, Chadwick s, Colony i, Cook p et al. The effectiveness of treatment of Class II malocclusion with the twin block appliance: a randomised, controlled trial.
2. Part 2: psychological effects. Am j orthod dentofac orthop 2003;124:488-95.
3. Chadwick sm, Banks p, Wright jl. The use of myofunctional appliances in the uk: a survey of british orthodontists. Dent update 1998;25:302-8.
4. Petrovic ag, Stutzmann jj, Gasson n. The final length of the mandible: is it genetically determined? In: carlson ds, editors. Craniofacial biology. Monograph no. 10. Ann arbor: center for human growth and development, university of michigan; 1981. P. 105-26.
5. Sharma ns. Management of growing skeletal Class II patient: a case report. Int j clin paediatr dent 2013;6:48-54.
6. Clark wj. The twin block traction technique. Eur j orthod 1982;4:129-38.
7. Clark wj. The twin block technique. A functional orthopaedic appliance system. Am j orthod dentofacial orthop 1988;93:1-18.
8. Al-anezi sa. Class II malocclusion treatment using combined twin block and fi xed orthodontic appliances - a case report. Saudi dent j 2011;23:43-51.
9. Trenouth mj. A comparison of twin block, andresen and removable appliances in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. Funct orthod 1992;9:26-31.
10. 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;117:54-9.
11. Singh gd, Hodge mr. Bimaxillary morphometry of patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with twin block appliances. Angle orthod 2002;72:402-9.
12. Sayeh ehsani, Brian nebbe, David normando, Manuel o. Lagravere and Carlos flores-mi Short-term treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance: a systematic review and
13. Meta-analysis european journal of orthodontics, 2014, 1–7
14. Saud a. Al-anez,Class II malocclusion treatment using combined twin block and fixed orthodontic appliances – a case report saudi dent j. 2011 jan; 23(1): 43–51

Dr Alpesh M. Vaghela

Post graduate student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, NPDCH, SPU, Visnagar, Gujarat, India