Published: 2021-10-22

Comparison of the hard and soft tissue changes of bimaxillary protrusion patients treated with Begg and MBT techniques: a cephalometric study

Nilanjana Sarkar, Karunakara B. C., Sumit Goel, Sumitra Reddy


Background: The effective treatment of bimaxillary protrusion needs a sound knowledge of the mechanics and expertise to control the tooth movement and the unwanted side effects. To obtain a desired finish there is a need to study and compare the mechanics used for correction of bimaxillary protrusion. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue effects of Begg and MBT mechanotherapies in the treatment of bimaxillary protrusion cases.

Methods: In the present study, cephalometric comparison of the two mechanotherapies, Begg and MBT appliances was done retrospectively. The subjects were selected on the basis of pretreatment characteristics. The sample consisted of 40 patients (20 in each group) with an age range of 12-24 years. Pre- and post-treatment cephalograms were taken and traced on 75μm lacquered polyester acetate tracing papers using a 0.05” lead pencil.

Results: The present study showed that Begg and the MBT appliances were equally effective in treating bimaxillary protrusion with first premolar extraction to satisfactory end results. Treatment with both the appliances resulted in significant amount of upper and lower anterior retraction and achievement of a pleasing facial appearance and profile.

Conclusions: Good torque control, if used in Begg mechanotherapy will result in achieving similar treatment outcome as obtained with MBT technique.


Begg mechanotherap, MBT mechanotherapy, Bimaxillary protrusion

Full Text:



AlkumruP, Erdem D, Altug-Atac AT. Evaluation of changes in the vertical facial dimension with different anchorage systems in extraction and non-extraction subjects treated by Begg fixed appliances: a retrospective study. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2001;4:22-56.

Ricketts RM. The influence of orthodontic treatment on facial growth and development. Angle Orthodontist. 1960;30:103-33.

Barton JJ. A cephalometric comparison of cases treated with Edgewise and Begg techniques. Angle Orthodontist. 1973;43:119-26.

Venezia AJ. Pure Begg and Edgewise arch treatments: Comparison of results. Angle Orthodontist. 1973;43:289-300.

Parker SW. A consideration of pure Begg technique. Angle Orthodontist. 1969;39:1-10.

McKinney JR, Harris EF. Influence of patient age and sex on orthodontic treatment: Evaluations of Begg lightwire, standard edgewise, and straight-wire techniques. America Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2001;120:530-41.

Muliman PS, Jayade CV, Jayade VP. Comparison of Efficacy of Begg, Tip-Edge and Pre-Adjusted Edgewise Appliances in the Treatment of Class I Bimaxillary Protrusion Patients using Centroid Analysis and ICON Index. Orthodontic Cyber Journal. 2009;6:1-41.

Sharma V, Sengupta J. Modifications to Increase Efficiency of the Begg Orthodontic Technique. Medical Journal of Armed Forces India. 2009;65:118-22.

Swain BF. Begg deferential light forces technique. Tom 2. In Graber TM, Swain BF (ed), Current orthodontic concepts and techniques. ed 2, Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders. 1975.

Begg PR, Kesling PC. Begg orthodontic theory and technique, ed 3, Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders. 1977.

Sahafian AA, Heravi F, Oshagh M. A Comparative Study between Treatment Outcomes of Class I Cases Treated by Begg and Edgewise Orthodontic Systems. Journal of Mashhad Dental School. 2007;31:201-8.

Hosseinzadeh-Nik T, Farrokhzadeh AM, Golestan B. Horizontal dental changes during first stage of treatment using the MBT technique. Journal of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2007;4:9-14.

Usmani T, O'Brien KD, Worthington HV, Derwent S, Fox D, Harrison S et al. A randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of canine lacebacks with reference to canine tip. Journal of Orthodontics. 2002;29:281-6.

Irvine R, Power S, McDonald F The effectiveness of laceback ligatures: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Orthodontics. 2004;31:303-311.

Thompson WJ. A cephalometric evaluation of incisor positioning with the Begg appliance. Angle Orthodontist. 1974;44:1-20.

Nanda RS, Meng H, Kapila S, Goorhuis J. Growth changes in the soft tissue profile. Angle Orthodontist. 1990;60:177-90.

Looi LK, Mills JRE. The effect of contrasting forms of orthodontic treatment on the facial profile. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1986;89:507-17.

Anderson J, Joondeph D, Turpin D. A cephalometric study of profile changes in orthodontically treated cases ten years out retention. Angle Orthodontist. 1973;43:324-35.

Ricketts RM. Aesthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1968;54:272-89.

Rudee D. Proportional profile changes concurrent with orthodontic therapy. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1964;50:421-34.

Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1987;95:385-94.

Waldman BH. Change in lip contour with maxillary incisor retraction. Angle Orthodontist. 1982;52:129-34.

Wisth PJ. Soft tissue response to upper incisor retraction in boys. British Journal of Orthodontics. 1974;1:199-204.

Conley SR, Jernigan C. Soft tissue changes after upper premolar extraction in Class II camouflage therapy. Angle Orthodontist. 2006;76:59-65.

Roos N. Soft-tissue profile changes in Class II treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1977;72:165-74.

Sharma JN. Skeletal and Soft Tissue Point A and B Changes Following Orthodontic Treatment of Nepalese Class I Bimaxillary Protrusive Patients. Angle Orthodontist. 2010;80:91-6.

Subtelny JD. The soft tissue profile, growth and treatment changes. Angle Orthodontist. 1961;31:105–22.

Garner LD. Soft tissue changes concurrent with orthodontic tooth movement. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1974;66:367-77.

Jacobs JD. Vertical lip changes from maxillary incisor retraction. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1978;74:396-404.

Talass MF, Talass F, Baker R. Soft tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1978;91:385-94.

Rosalia L, Annunziata A, Licciardell V, Barbato E. Soft tissue changes following the extraction of premolars in non-growing patients with bimaxillary protrusion – A systematic review. Angle Orthodontist. 2010;80:21:11-216.

Rains MD, Nanda R. Soft tissue changes associated with maxillary incisor retraction. American Journal of Orthodontist. 1982;81:481-8.

Tadic N, Woods MG. Incisal and Soft Tissue Effects of Maxillary Premolar Extraction in Class II Treatment. Angle Orthodontist. 2007;77:808-16.

Wholley CJ, Woods MG. The effects of commonly prescribed premolar extraction sequences on the curvature of the upper and lower lips. Angle Orthodontist. 2003;73:386-95.

Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1989;95:220-30.

Koch R, Gonzales A, Witt E. Profile and soft tissue changes during and after orthodontic treatment. European Journal of Orthodontics. 1979;1:193-99.