Comparison of Dentoskeletal and Soft Tissue Changes among Growing Class II Patients undergoing Conventional Twin Block Therapy versus Esthetic Twin Block Therapy: Two-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 1

Study type

Interventional

Source

ChiCTR

Registry ID

ChiCTR2300074509

Enrollment

Unknown

Registered

2023-08-08

Start date

2023-08-15

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2023-08-21

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Retrognathic Mandible

Interventions

EG:Esthetic Twin Block

CG:Conventional Twin Block

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

10 Years to 16 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Skeletal class II due to a retrognathic mandible. 2. ANB angle greater than 4 degrees. 3. Angle class II, division 1. 4. Patient with an overjet = 5mm. 5. CVM stage of 2 - 4.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Patients who need concomitant headgear, 2 x 4 appliance, or any other appliance. 2. Patients with craniofacial anomalies, facial trauma/asymmetry.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Mandibular Growth;Decrease in the ANB angle;Decrease in the overjet;	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Retroclination of the upper incisors;	—

Countries

Pakistan

Contacts

Public ContactMuhammad Saood

Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, Pakistan

Saudroomi9@gmail.com+92 333 9155820

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ChiCTR (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026