{"id":{"repo_id":"cork","oai_identifier":"oai:cora.ucc.ie:10468/11974"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cork/oai:cora.ucc.ie:10468/11974","repository":{"repo_id":"cork","name":"University College Cork","base_url":"https://cora.ucc.ie/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Children and adolescents and modified twin block for Class II division 1 malocclusion compared to controls: quantitative and qualitative analyses","abstract":"Aims • To evaluate the impact Modified Twin Block (MTB) treatment has on oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL), self-esteem, self-perception of aesthetic treatment need and 3D soft tissue facial changes in children with Class II division 1 malocclusion (II/1M) compared to children with II/1M awaiting treatment who served as controls. • To assess the effect MTB treatment has on family quality of life (QoL) and on both the parent’s perception of their child’s OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need compared to controls. • To assess the level of agreement of child OHRQoL and perception of aesthetic treatment need by child and parent between groups. Materials and methods Following ethical approval, 60 subjects (31 males; 29 females) received MTB treatment (MTB group) and 47 subjects (22 males; 25 females) with II/1M awaiting treatment served as controls (Control group). At baseline (T1) and following MTB treatment/recall (T2) all subjects completed the Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ11-14), Child Health Questionnaire short from (CHQ-CF45) and self-assessed aesthetic treatment need (IOTN-AC). Each child also had a 3D facial image captured at rest. At the same time points, a parent of each child completed the Parent-Caregiver Perception Questionnaire (P-CPQ) and assessed their child’s aesthetic treatment need (IOTN-AC). Comparisons of patient demographics were made using ANOVA and Chi-square tests. ANOVA was used for comparisons in CPQ, P-CPQ, CHQ-CF45 and 3D soft tissue facial changes at T1 and T2 between groups and paired t-tests were used within both groups. Bowker’s symmetry test was used to compare IOTN-AC within groups and Fisher’s Exact test was used between groups. ANOVA was used to test for associations between CPQ, CHQ, IOTN-AC, and 3D soft tissue facial change. Results Forty-two subjects (20 males; 22 females) completed MTB treatment (average duration 8.5 months; range 5-12 months) and 35 untreated II/1M subjects (15 males; 20 females) were recalled after an average time of 11 months (range 9-13 months). At T1, groups were similar in age (p=0.1402) and gender (p=0.2973) but overjet in the MTB group was slightly greater (p=0.0016). At T2, there was a significant improvement in the MTB group in overall OHRQoL (p<0.0001) and self-perception of aesthetic treatment need (p=0.018) but there was no change in self-esteem (p=0.144). Significant improvements occurred in family QoL (p=0.0001), in parent’s perception of both their child’s OHRQoL (p<0.0001) and aesthetic treatment need (p<0.0001). In the MTB and Control groups and at both time points, the level of agreement between child and parent perception of the child’s OHRQoL was poor with parents rating it worse [MTB group T1, p=0.0001; T2, p=0.003]; [Control group T1, p=0.001; T2, p=0.008]. At T1, parents rated the aesthetic treatment need to be greater than their child in the MTB group (p=0.054) and Control group (p=0.04). At T2, the level of agreement between the child and parent in their aesthetic treatment need was similar (p=0.262) but in the MTB group children perceived their aesthetic treatment need to be greater than their parents (p=0.019). From T1 to T2, significant 3D soft tissue changes occurred at Pogonion in the MTB group 4.26 mm (p= 0.001) and in the Control group 3.29 mm (p=0.002) but the mean difference between the groups (0.97 mm; p=0.011) was not clinically significant. Conclusions • MTB treatment significantly improved the OHRQoL and self-perception of aesthetic treatment need in children with II/1M but had no significant impact on self-esteem or 3D soft tissue facial changes compared to controls. • MTB treatment significantly improved the family QoL and both the parent’s perception of their child’s OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need compared to controls. • In children following MTB treatment or awaiting treatment, poor agreement existed between the child and parent perception of OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need.","abstract_html":"Aims • To evaluate the impact Modified Twin Block (MTB) treatment has on oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL), self-esteem, self-perception of aesthetic treatment need and 3D soft tissue facial changes in children with Class II division 1 malocclusion (II/1M) compared to children with II/1M awaiting treatment who served as controls. • To assess the effect MTB treatment has on family quality of life (QoL) and on both the parent’s perception of their child’s OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need compared to controls. • To assess the level of agreement of child OHRQoL and perception of aesthetic treatment need by child and parent between groups. Materials and methods Following ethical approval, 60 subjects (31 males; 29 females) received MTB treatment (MTB group) and 47 subjects (22 males; 25 females) with II/1M awaiting treatment served as controls (Control group). At baseline (T1) and following MTB treatment/recall (T2) all subjects completed the Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ11-14), Child Health Questionnaire short from (CHQ-CF45) and self-assessed aesthetic treatment need (IOTN-AC). Each child also had a 3D facial image captured at rest. At the same time points, a parent of each child completed the Parent-Caregiver Perception Questionnaire (P-CPQ) and assessed their child’s aesthetic treatment need (IOTN-AC). Comparisons of patient demographics were made using ANOVA and Chi-square tests. ANOVA was used for comparisons in CPQ, P-CPQ, CHQ-CF45 and 3D soft tissue facial changes at T1 and T2 between groups and paired t-tests were used within both groups. Bowker’s symmetry test was used to compare IOTN-AC within groups and Fisher’s Exact test was used between groups. ANOVA was used to test for associations between CPQ, CHQ, IOTN-AC, and 3D soft tissue facial change. Results Forty-two subjects (20 males; 22 females) completed MTB treatment (average duration 8.5 months; range 5-12 months) and 35 untreated II/1M subjects (15 males; 20 females) were recalled after an average time of 11 months (range 9-13 months). At T1, groups were similar in age (p=0.1402) and gender (p=0.2973) but overjet in the MTB group was slightly greater (p=0.0016). At T2, there was a significant improvement in the MTB group in overall OHRQoL (p<0.0001) and self-perception of aesthetic treatment need (p=0.018) but there was no change in self-esteem (p=0.144). Significant improvements occurred in family QoL (p=0.0001), in parent’s perception of both their child’s OHRQoL (p<0.0001) and aesthetic treatment need (p<0.0001). In the MTB and Control groups and at both time points, the level of agreement between child and parent perception of the child’s OHRQoL was poor with parents rating it worse [MTB group T1, p=0.0001; T2, p=0.003]; [Control group T1, p=0.001; T2, p=0.008]. At T1, parents rated the aesthetic treatment need to be greater than their child in the MTB group (p=0.054) and Control group (p=0.04). At T2, the level of agreement between the child and parent in their aesthetic treatment need was similar (p=0.262) but in the MTB group children perceived their aesthetic treatment need to be greater than their parents (p=0.019). From T1 to T2, significant 3D soft tissue changes occurred at Pogonion in the MTB group 4.26 mm (p= 0.001) and in the Control group 3.29 mm (p=0.002) but the mean difference between the groups (0.97 mm; p=0.011) was not clinically significant. Conclusions • MTB treatment significantly improved the OHRQoL and self-perception of aesthetic treatment need in children with II/1M but had no significant impact on self-esteem or 3D soft tissue facial changes compared to controls. • MTB treatment significantly improved the family QoL and both the parent’s perception of their child’s OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need compared to controls. • In children following MTB treatment or awaiting treatment, poor agreement existed between the child and parent perception of OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["O'Dwyer, Caroline"],"institution":"University College Cork","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Millett, Declan"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2021,"date_issued":"2021-07","date_published":"2021-07","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:46:20Z","subjects":["Class II malocclusion","Quality of life","Oral health related quality of life","Children and adolescents","Class II division 1","Increased overjet"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["© 2021, Caroline O'Dwyer."],"rights_urls":["https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10468/11974","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Millett, Declan"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["O'Dwyer, Caroline"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2021-09-21T15:11:45Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2021-09-21T15:11:45Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2021-07"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["University College Cork"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Doctoral thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["DClinDent - Doctor of Clinical Dentistry"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Class II malocclusion","Quality of life","Oral health related quality of life","Children and adolescents","Class II division 1","Increased overjet"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["© 2021, Caroline O'Dwyer."]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10468/11974"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Aims • To evaluate the impact Modified Twin Block (MTB) treatment has on oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL), self-esteem, self-perception of aesthetic treatment need and 3D soft tissue facial changes in children with Class II division 1 malocclusion (II/1M) compared to children with II/1M awaiting treatment who served as controls. • To assess the effect MTB treatment has on family quality of life (QoL) and on both the parent’s perception of their child’s OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need compared to controls. • To assess the level of agreement of child OHRQoL and perception of aesthetic treatment need by child and parent between groups. Materials and methods Following ethical approval, 60 subjects (31 males; 29 females) received MTB treatment (MTB group) and 47 subjects (22 males; 25 females) with II/1M awaiting treatment served as controls (Control group). At baseline (T1) and following MTB treatment/recall (T2) all subjects completed the Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ11-14), Child Health Questionnaire short from (CHQ-CF45) and self-assessed aesthetic treatment need (IOTN-AC). Each child also had a 3D facial image captured at rest. At the same time points, a parent of each child completed the Parent-Caregiver Perception Questionnaire (P-CPQ) and assessed their child’s aesthetic treatment need (IOTN-AC). Comparisons of patient demographics were made using ANOVA and Chi-square tests. ANOVA was used for comparisons in CPQ, P-CPQ, CHQ-CF45 and 3D soft tissue facial changes at T1 and T2 between groups and paired t-tests were used within both groups. Bowker’s symmetry test was used to compare IOTN-AC within groups and Fisher’s Exact test was used between groups. ANOVA was used to test for associations between CPQ, CHQ, IOTN-AC, and 3D soft tissue facial change. Results Forty-two subjects (20 males; 22 females) completed MTB treatment (average duration 8.5 months; range 5-12 months) and 35 untreated II/1M subjects (15 males; 20 females) were recalled after an average time of 11 months (range 9-13 months). At T1, groups were similar in age (p=0.1402) and gender (p=0.2973) but overjet in the MTB group was slightly greater (p=0.0016). At T2, there was a significant improvement in the MTB group in overall OHRQoL (p<0.0001) and self-perception of aesthetic treatment need (p=0.018) but there was no change in self-esteem (p=0.144). Significant improvements occurred in family QoL (p=0.0001), in parent’s perception of both their child’s OHRQoL (p<0.0001) and aesthetic treatment need (p<0.0001). In the MTB and Control groups and at both time points, the level of agreement between child and parent perception of the child’s OHRQoL was poor with parents rating it worse [MTB group T1, p=0.0001; T2, p=0.003]; [Control group T1, p=0.001; T2, p=0.008]. At T1, parents rated the aesthetic treatment need to be greater than their child in the MTB group (p=0.054) and Control group (p=0.04). At T2, the level of agreement between the child and parent in their aesthetic treatment need was similar (p=0.262) but in the MTB group children perceived their aesthetic treatment need to be greater than their parents (p=0.019). From T1 to T2, significant 3D soft tissue changes occurred at Pogonion in the MTB group 4.26 mm (p= 0.001) and in the Control group 3.29 mm (p=0.002) but the mean difference between the groups (0.97 mm; p=0.011) was not clinically significant. Conclusions • MTB treatment significantly improved the OHRQoL and self-perception of aesthetic treatment need in children with II/1M but had no significant impact on self-esteem or 3D soft tissue facial changes compared to controls. • MTB treatment significantly improved the family QoL and both the parent’s perception of their child’s OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need compared to controls. • In children following MTB treatment or awaiting treatment, poor agreement existed between the child and parent perception of OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need."]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Children and adolescents and modified twin block for Class II division 1 malocclusion compared to controls: quantitative and qualitative analyses"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Millett, Declan"],"dc:creator":["O'Dwyer, Caroline"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2021-09-21T15:11:45Z"],"dc:date.available":["2021-09-21T15:11:45Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2021-07"],"dc:description.abstract":["Aims • To evaluate the impact Modified Twin Block (MTB) treatment has on oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL), self-esteem, self-perception of aesthetic treatment need and 3D soft tissue facial changes in children with Class II division 1 malocclusion (II/1M) compared to children with II/1M awaiting treatment who served as controls. • To assess the effect MTB treatment has on family quality of life (QoL) and on both the parent’s perception of their child’s OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need compared to controls. • To assess the level of agreement of child OHRQoL and perception of aesthetic treatment need by child and parent between groups. Materials and methods Following ethical approval, 60 subjects (31 males; 29 females) received MTB treatment (MTB group) and 47 subjects (22 males; 25 females) with II/1M awaiting treatment served as controls (Control group). At baseline (T1) and following MTB treatment/recall (T2) all subjects completed the Child Perception Questionnaire (CPQ11-14), Child Health Questionnaire short from (CHQ-CF45) and self-assessed aesthetic treatment need (IOTN-AC). Each child also had a 3D facial image captured at rest. At the same time points, a parent of each child completed the Parent-Caregiver Perception Questionnaire (P-CPQ) and assessed their child’s aesthetic treatment need (IOTN-AC). Comparisons of patient demographics were made using ANOVA and Chi-square tests. ANOVA was used for comparisons in CPQ, P-CPQ, CHQ-CF45 and 3D soft tissue facial changes at T1 and T2 between groups and paired t-tests were used within both groups. Bowker’s symmetry test was used to compare IOTN-AC within groups and Fisher’s Exact test was used between groups. ANOVA was used to test for associations between CPQ, CHQ, IOTN-AC, and 3D soft tissue facial change. Results Forty-two subjects (20 males; 22 females) completed MTB treatment (average duration 8.5 months; range 5-12 months) and 35 untreated II/1M subjects (15 males; 20 females) were recalled after an average time of 11 months (range 9-13 months). At T1, groups were similar in age (p=0.1402) and gender (p=0.2973) but overjet in the MTB group was slightly greater (p=0.0016). At T2, there was a significant improvement in the MTB group in overall OHRQoL (p<0.0001) and self-perception of aesthetic treatment need (p=0.018) but there was no change in self-esteem (p=0.144). Significant improvements occurred in family QoL (p=0.0001), in parent’s perception of both their child’s OHRQoL (p<0.0001) and aesthetic treatment need (p<0.0001). In the MTB and Control groups and at both time points, the level of agreement between child and parent perception of the child’s OHRQoL was poor with parents rating it worse [MTB group T1, p=0.0001; T2, p=0.003]; [Control group T1, p=0.001; T2, p=0.008]. At T1, parents rated the aesthetic treatment need to be greater than their child in the MTB group (p=0.054) and Control group (p=0.04). At T2, the level of agreement between the child and parent in their aesthetic treatment need was similar (p=0.262) but in the MTB group children perceived their aesthetic treatment need to be greater than their parents (p=0.019). From T1 to T2, significant 3D soft tissue changes occurred at Pogonion in the MTB group 4.26 mm (p= 0.001) and in the Control group 3.29 mm (p=0.002) but the mean difference between the groups (0.97 mm; p=0.011) was not clinically significant. Conclusions • MTB treatment significantly improved the OHRQoL and self-perception of aesthetic treatment need in children with II/1M but had no significant impact on self-esteem or 3D soft tissue facial changes compared to controls. • MTB treatment significantly improved the family QoL and both the parent’s perception of their child’s OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need compared to controls. • In children following MTB treatment or awaiting treatment, poor agreement existed between the child and parent perception of OHRQoL and aesthetic treatment need."],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10468/11974"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["University College Cork"],"dc:rights":["© 2021, Caroline O'Dwyer."],"dc:rights.uri":["https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"],"dc:subject":["Class II malocclusion","Quality of life","Oral health related quality of life","Children and adolescents","Class II division 1","Increased overjet"],"dc:title":["Children and adolescents and modified twin block for Class II division 1 malocclusion compared to controls: quantitative and qualitative analyses"],"dc:type":["Doctoral thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["DClinDent - Doctor of Clinical Dentistry"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:46:20Z"}