Effects of Twin-block vs sagittal-guidance Twin-block appliance on alveolar bone around mandibular incisors in growing patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion

•Twin-block (TB) and sagittal-guidance Twin-block (SGTB) appliances caused labial alveolar bone loss around mandibular incisors. •Less labial alveolar bone loss was found in the SGTB group than that in TB group. •The incisors drifted and tipped labially after the TB and SGTB treatment. •Less incisor proclination and crown edge drift were found in the SGTB group. Introduction The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate the effects of Twin-block (TB) appliance and sagittal-guidance Twin-block (SGTB) appliance on alveolar bone around mandibular incisors in growing patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, using cone-beam computed tomography. Methods The sample consisted of 25 growing patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion (14 boys and 11 girls, mean age 11.92 ± 1.62 years) and was randomly distributed into the TB group (n = 13) and the SGTB group (n = 12). The treatment duration was 11.56 ± 1.73 months. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) cone-beam computed tomography scans were taken in both groups. Height, thickness at apex level, and volume of the alveolar bone around mandibular left central incisors were measured respectively on labial and lingual side, using Mimics software (version 19.0; Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Based on the stable structures, 3-dimensional (3D) registrations of T1 and T2 models were taken to measure the sagittal displacement of incisors. Intragroup comparisons were evaluated by paired-samples t tests and Wilcoxon tests. Independent-samples t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for intergroup comparisons. Results In both groups, alveolar bone height and volume on the labial side of the incisors significantly decreased after treatment (P <0.05). Lingual alveolar bone height, lingual and total alveolar bone volume, labial, lingual and total alveolar bone thickness showed no significant difference between T1 and T2 (P >0.05). In both groups the incisors tipped labially and drifted to the labial side. Compared with the TB group, less labial alveolar bone loss, less incisor proclination and crown edge drift were found in the SGTB group (P <0.05). Conclusions Labial alveolar bone loss around mandibular incisors was observed after both types of appliances treatment in growing patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Less labial alveolar bone loss, less incisor proclination, and crown edge drift were found in the SGTB group than in the TB group during treatment.