Effects of the Herbst appliance in growing orthodontic patients with different underlying vertical patterns

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480

DESCRIPTION

0
Reader(s)
0
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 31 , ISSUE 1 (May 2015) > List of articles

Effects of the Herbst appliance in growing orthodontic patients with different underlying vertical patterns

Emily Deen / Michael G. Woods *

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 59-68, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-141

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 15-August-2021

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The present study involved an assessment of the effects of the Herbst appliance used for Class II correction in subjects with different vertical facial patterns.

Methods: Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 91 growing Class II patients were divided into three vertical facial groups on the basis of mandibular plane angulation. All received a Herbst appliance and dental and skeletal changes were assessed in relation to pretreatment incisal overbite, overjet and the stage of cervical maturity.

Results: Herbst appliance treatment was accompanied by changes in the angulation of the upper and lower incisors, overjet reduction and an increase in mandibular length. In general, the rotational facial changes occurring during treatment were minimal, so that dolichofacial patterns remained long and brachyfacial patterns remained short.

Conclusion: Herbst appliance treatment can be expected to result in considerable Class II dental correction. It is unlikely, however, that its use will be associated with clinically significant forward rotation in dolichofacial subjects. Since dolichofacial patterns are likely to remain long-faced, even after considerable Class II dental correction, orthognathic surgery may still be a consideration if normal facial proportions, without excessive facial convexity and lip strain, are treatment aims.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Burkhardt DR, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:108-16.

2. DeVincenzo JP. Changes in mandibular length before, during, and after successful orthopedic correction of Class II malocclusions, using a functional appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:241-57.

3. Hägg U, Du X, Rabie AB. Initial and late treatment effects of headgear-Herbst appliance with mandibular step-by-step advancement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:477-85.

4. Hansen K, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment in relation to normal growth development: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:285-95.

5. Hansen K, Pancherz H, Hägg U. Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1991;13:471-81.

6. Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance – its biologic effects and clinical use. Am J Orthod 1985;87:1-20.

7. Pancherz H, Hensen K. Occlusal changes during and after Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:215-28.

8. Wieslander L. Long-term effect of treatment with the headgearHerbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or relapse? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:319-29.

9. Pancherz H, Ruf S, Kohlhas P. “Effective condylar growth” and chin position changes in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic long-term study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:437-46.

10. Pancherz H. Vertical dentofacial changes during Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Swed Dent J Suppl 1982;15:189-96.

11. Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. The headgear effect of the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric long-term study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:510-20.

12. Pancherz H, Michailidou C. Temporomandibular joint growth changes in hyperdivergent and hypodivergent Herbst subjects. A long-term roentgenographic cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:153-61.

13. Lai M. Molar distalization with the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 2000;6:119-28.

14. VanLaecken R, Martin CA, Dischinger T, Razmus T, Ngan P. Treatment effects of the edgewise Herbst appliance: a cephalometric and tomographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:582-93.

15. Wieslander L. Intensive treatment of severe Class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1984;86:1-13.

16. Ruf S, Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction during Herbst therapy in relation to the vertical jaw base relationship: a cephalometric roentgenographic study. Angle Orthod 1997;67:271-6.

17. Hägg U. Change in mandibular growth direction by means of a Herbst appliance? A case report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:456-63.

18. Schiavoni R, Grenga V, Macri V. Treatment of Class II high angle malocclusions with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:393-409.

19. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod 2002;72:316-23.

20. Nanda RS, Ghosh J. Longitudinal growth changes in the sagittal relationship of the maxilla and mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:79-90.

21. Sherman SL, Woods M, Nanda RS, Currier GF. The longitudinal effects of growth on the Wits appraisal. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:429-36.

22. Tadic N, Woods MG. Incisal and soft tissue effects of maxillary premolar extraction in Class II treatment. Angle Orthod 2007;77:808-16.

23. Woods M. Lower incisor changes on basal bone and in relation to the lower face: combined growth and treatment effects in the late mixeddentition. Aust Orthod J 2002;18:7-18.

24. Woods MG. Sagittal mandibular changes with overbite correction in subjects with different mandibular growth directions: late mixeddentition treatment effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:388-94.

25. Vincent AM, West VC. Cephalometric landmark identification error. Aust Orthod J 1987;10:98-104.

26. Hägglund P, Segerdal S, Forsberg CM. The integrated Herbst appliance – treatment effects in a group of adolescent males with Class II malocclusions compared with growth changes in an untreated control group. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:120-7.

27. Pancherz H. A cephalometric analysis of skeletal and dental changes contributing to Class II correction in activator treatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85:125-34.

28. McNamara JA Jr, Howe RP, Dischinger TG. A comparison of the Herbst and Fränkel appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:134-44.

29. Pancherz H. The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:220-33.

30. Pancherz H. The effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial adaptations to treatment with the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 1997;3:232-43.

31. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR. Longitudinal changes in three normal facial types. Am J Orthod 1985;88:466-502.

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

33. Schudy FF. Vertical growth versus anteroposterior growth as related to function and treatment. Angle Orthod 1964;34:75-93.

34. Tweed CH. The diagnostic facial triangle in the control of treatment objectives. Am J Orthod 1969;55:651-7.

35. Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular growth as related to cervical vertebral maturation and body height. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:335-40.

36. Gu Y, McNamara JA Jr. Mandibular growth changes and cervical vertebral maturation. A cephalometric implant study. Angle Orthod 2007;77:947-53.

37. Chan H, Woods MG, Stella D. Mandibular muscle morphology in children with different vertical facial patterns: A 3-dimensional computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:10.e1-13.

38. Valant JR, Sinclair PM. Treatment effects of the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:138-47.

39. Pancherz H, Hägg U. Dentofacial orthopedics in relation to somatic maturation. An analysis of 70 consecutive cases treated with the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod 1985;88:273-87.

40. Malmgren O, Omblus J, Hägg U, Pancherz H. Treatment with an orthopedic appliance system in relation to treatment intensity and growth periods. A study of initial effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:143-51.

41. Bell WH, Creekmore TD, Alexander RG. Surgical correction of the long face syndrome. Am J Orthod 1977;71:40-67.

42. Mojdehi M, Buschang PH, English JD, Wolford LM. Postsurgical growth changes in the mandible of adolescents with vertical maxillary excess growth pattern. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:106-16.

43. Woods MG, Swift JQ, Markowitz NR. Clinical implications of advances in orthognathic surgery. J Clin Orthod 1989;23:420-9.

44. Woods MG, Wiesenfeld D. A practical approach to presurgical orthodontic preparation. J Clin Orthod 1998:32:350-8.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS