Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2020
Frankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents:
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Impact of orthodontic treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion with twin block or Sander bite-jumping appliance during puberty on oral health-related quality of life and family functioning : Randomized controlled trial.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Article
- Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of Cetylpyridinium Chloride on Oral Healthcare in Patients Wearing Removable Orthodontic Appliances.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2025Article
- Reflection on patients' experience with orthodontic appliances wear and its impact on oral health related quality of life: observational comparative study.BMC oral health · 2023Observational
- Removable versus fixed myo-functional appliances in class II malocclusion among Indians.Bioinformation · 2023Article
- Comparative Analysis of Dentoskeletal Changes of the Twin Block Appliance and the AdvanSync2 Appliance in Treatment of Skeletal Class-II Malocclusion in Pakistani Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.European journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Esthetic and Structural Aspects in Class II Functional Therapy. A Case-Control Retrospective Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Validation of the Chinese version of the Malocclusion Impact Questionnaire (MIQ).Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- [Early orthodontic/orthopedic treatment in patients with class II sagittal anomalies. A review].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare Phase 1 treatment, using the Frankel 2 (FR2) or the modified Twin Block (MTB), for Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents with respect to: treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty participants with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were randomly assigned to either the FR2 or MTB appliance in a two-armed parallel randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1 to 1. Time to achieve a Class I incisor relationship was the primary outcome. The number of appliance breakages was recorded. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate pre- and post-treatment occlusal outcome on study models. Participants completed the child OHRQoL (oral health-related quality of life), Piers-Harris, Standard Continuum of Aesthetic Need (SCAN), and Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) questionnaires pre- and post-treatment; parents completed a SCAN questionnaire.
resultsForty-two participants completed treatment (FR2: 20; MTB: 22). Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data for noncompleters. Mean treatment duration was similar for the two appliances (FR2: 376 days [SD 101]; MTB: 340 days [SD 102];
conclusionsPhase 1 treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives were similar in 11-14 year olds with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated using the FR2 or MTB appliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.