Myobrace are a series of simple, prefabricated orthodontic appliances that all resemble a positioner. They have been marketed by the company Myofunctional Research since about 2010 with increasing pressure in Europe. Almost every orthodontist receives regular advertising. It’s claimed that the prefabricated Myobrace appliances are mainly suitable for the early orthodontic treatment which is questionable anyway.
Myofunctional Research claims all sorts of miracles that can be achieved with the Myobrace appliances: Myobrace would tackle “the root causes” of malocclusions at primary school age, while traditional treatment at 10-12 years could already cause “irreversible damage”. While wearing Myobrace in combination with a few small exercises, “bad habits and false growth patterns” would be corrected and, of course, “excellent results” could be achieved. It goes without saying that Myofunctional Research thinks that these miracle effects are, of course, easier, faster and cheaper to achieve than with traditional orthodontic treatment.
Even if only half of it was true, any orthodontist would have to offer this great treatment option. However, until recently, there have been no published studies outlining the particular value of Myobrace except the floral claims of Myofunctional Research. Thankfully, this has largely changed.
In a solid study from Sweden, Myobrace was compared to an old-fashioned activator. Here are the results:
- Altogether, the children’s compliance was rather bad concerning both removable appliances.
- Compliance with the activator was better.
- The activator was more expensive than Myobrace and needed a jaw impression.
- The quite unimpressive treatment effects of both appliances were almost the same.
So we can summarize that this study was not exactly an invitation to use Myobrace appliances in patients!
Read more about this study:
http://kevinobrienorthoblog.com/myofunctional-orthodontics-work-we-have-a-trial/
Čirgić, E., Kjellberg, H., & Hansen, K. (2015). Treatment of large overjet in Angle Class II: division 1 malocclusion with Andresen activators versus prefabricated functional appliances—a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial The European Journal of Orthodontics
And there is a second solid study from Syria in which Myobrace, exactly T4K (Trainer for Kids), was also compared to the good old activator. Here are the results after 12 months of treatment:
- The improvements were slightly greater with the activator than with Myobrace (T4K)-appliance, both in the point of tooth movement and in the improvement of the jaw position.
- The wearing time was generally better with the activator, in other words: this appliance was better accepted by the children than Myobrace.
- The authors suggest that the better effect of the activator is based on the longer wearing time.
Here is more information about this study:
http://kevinobrienorthoblog.com/myofunctional-appliances-interesting-results/
Ghassan Idris et al. Soft- and hard-tissue changes following treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with Activator versus Trainer: a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Orthodontics, 2018, 1–8 doi:10.1093/ejo/cjy014
So far, two very good studies on Myobrace are available today, and they show that Myobrace has only disadvantages compared to the activator except for the lower production costs. While there has always been a great deal of restraint against Myobrace, today we can say that the use of these appliances is simply questionable. A great benefit of these simple appliances can only be expected for two parties – the manufacturer and the administering orthodontist. Unfortunately, some orthodontists now market Myobrace as aggressively as the manufacturer – and all of them simply ignore the modest results of the two mentioned studies. This is not honest! In any case, the patient should not hope for any great therapeutic effects.
Tip for parents: Stay away from Myobrace!