Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(01): 039-046
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715789
Original Article

Treatment Effects of the Herbst Appliance in Class II Malocclusion Patients after the Growth Peak

Rodrigo Hermont Cançado
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
4   Department of Orthodontics, Uningá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
,
Guilherme Janson
2   Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil
,
Bryan Tompson
3   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
José Carlos de Castro Alvares
4   Department of Orthodontics, Uningá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
,
Fabrício Pinelli Valarelli
4   Department of Orthodontics, Uningá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
,
Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas 
4   Department of Orthodontics, Uningá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate dentoskeletal changes in the treatment of Class II malocclusion with the Herbst Cantilever Bite Jumper (CBJ) appliance, associated with multibracket appliances after the growth peak, at pretreatment.

Materials and Methods  A sample of 37 individuals was divided into two groups: the experimental group comprised 16 patients treated consecutively for a mean period of 2.52 years with the Herbst CBJ appliance associated with multibracket appliances. A total of 21 subjects (10 males and 11 females) with Class II malocclusion and mean age at T1 of 16.08 years were followed for a mean period of 2.12 years composed the control group. Comparisons between the two groups were performed using initial and final lateral cephalograms. Comparisons between experimental and control groups at pretreatment and of the treatment changes were performed by Mann–Whitney or independent t-tests.

Results Experimental group exhibited a significantly greater labial inclination of the mandibular incisors in comparison to the control group. Additionally, significantly greater corrections in overbite, overjet, and molar relationship were observed in the experimental than in the control groups.

Conclusion The effects of the Herbst CBJ appliance, associated with fixed appliances after the growth peak in Class II malocclusion treatment are correction in molar relationship toward a Class I relationship, decrease of the overjet, decrease of the overbite, and mandibular incisors labial inclination.

Keywords

angle Class II malocclusion - young adult - cephalometry - age factors


Publication History

Article published online:
31 August 2020

© 2020. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Sassouni V. A classification of skeletal facial types. Am J Orthod 1969; 55 (02) 109-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 McNamara Jr JA. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 1981; 51 (03) 177-202
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Martina S, Di Stefano ML, Paduano FP, Aiello D, Valletta R, Paduano S. Evaluation of profile changes in class II individuals treated by means of herbst miniscope appliance. Dent J (Basel) 2020; 8 (01) 27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Moresca AHK, de Moraes ND, Topolski F, et al. Esthetic perception of facial profile changes in Class II patients treated with Herbst or Forsus appliances [published online ahead of print, 2020 Feb 24]. Angle Orthod 2020;10.2319/052719-362.1 doi:10.2319/052719-362.1
  • 5 Celikoglu M, Unal T, Bayram M, Candirli C. Treatment of a skeletal class II malocclusion using fixed functional appliance with miniplate anchorage. Eur J Dent 2014; 8 (02) 276-280
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kinzinger GSM, Lisson JA, Frye L, Gross U, Hourfar J. A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: functional mandibular advancer vs. herbst appliance. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22 (01) 293-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA. Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38 (02) 113-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Portelli M, Militi A, Cicciù M. et al. No compliance correction of class II malocclusion in growing patients Whit HERBST appliance: a case report. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 605-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E. Micro-electronic monitoring of functional appliance wear. Eur J Orthod 1990; 12 (03) 297-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E. Reliability of patient reports on compliance. Eur J Orthod 1990; 12 (04) 438-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pancherz H. Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1979; 76 (04) 423-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bock N, Ruehl J, Ruf S. Orthodontic class II:1 treatment-efficiency and outcome quality of Herbst-multibracket appliance therapy. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22 (05) 2005-2011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fan Y, Schneider P, Matthews H. et al. 3D assessment of mandibular skeletal effects produced by the Herbst appliance. BMC Oral Health 2020; 20 (01) 117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Perinetti G, Primožič J, Furlani G, Franchi L, Contardo L. Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances alone or in combination with multibracket appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod 2015; 85 (03) 480-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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 (04) 273-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Konik M, Pancherz H, Hansen K. The mechanism of class II correction in late Herbst treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112 (01) 87-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 1999; 69 (03) 239-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chhibber A, Upadhyay M, Uribe F, Nanda R. Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with twin force bite corrector. Angle Orthod 2013; 83 (04) 718-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Frye L, Diedrich PR, Kinzinger GS. Class II treatment with fixed functional orthodontic appliances before and after the pubertal growth peak: a cephalometric study to evaluate differential therapeutic effects. J Orofac Orthop 2009; 70 (06) 511-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Alvares JC, Cançado RH, Valarelli FP, de Freitas KM, Angheben CZ. Class II malocclusion treatment with the Herbst appliance in patients after the growth peak. Dental Press J Orthod 2013; 18 (05) 38-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in early and late adulthood. A prospective cephalometric study of consecutively treated subjects. Eur J Orthod 2006; 28 (04) 352-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Buschang PH, Martins J. Childhood and adolescent changes of skeletal relationships. Angle Orthod 1998; 68 (03) 199-206, discussion 207–208
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dyer GS, Harris EF, Vaden JL. Age effects on orthodontic treatment: adolescents contrasted with adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100 (06) 523-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Harris EF, Dyer GS, Vaden JL. Age effects on orthodontic treatment: skeletodental assessments from the Johnston analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100 (06) 531-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vaden JL, Harris EF, Behrents RG. Adult versus adolescent Class II correction: a comparison. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107 (06) 651-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Janson G, Janson M, Nakamura A. de Freitas MR, Henriques JF, Pinzan A. Influence of cephalometric characteristics on the occlusal success rate of Class II malocclusions treated with 2- and 4-premolar extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133 (06) 861-868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Janson G, Simão TM, Barros SE, Janson M, de Freitas MR. Influence of the cephalometric characteristics on the occlusal success rate of Class II malocclusions treated with nonextraction or with two maxillary premolar extraction protocols. World J Orthod 2010; 11 (04) e63-e71
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Lima KJ, Henriques JF, Janson G, Pereira SC, Neves LS, Cançado RH. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and the activator-headgear combination appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143 (05) 684-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Neves LS, Janson G, Cançado RH, de Lima KJ, Fernandes TM, Henriques JF. Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances. Prog Orthod 2014; 15: 54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance–its biologic effects and clinical use. Am J Orthod 1985; 87 (01) 1-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ghislanzoni LT, Baccetti T, Toll D. Defraia E, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. Treatment timing of MARA and fixed appliance therapy of Class II malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35 (03) 394-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Oztoprak MO, Nalbantgil D, Uyanlar A, Arun T. A cephalometric comparative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS(2)) and Forsus FRD appliances. Eur J Dent 2012; 6 (03) 302-310
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Nalbantgil D, Arun T, Sayinsu K, Fulya I. Skeletal, dental and soft-tissue changes induced by the Jasper Jumper appliance in late adolescence. Angle Orthod 2005; 75 (03) 426-436
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Jacobson A. Application of the “wits” appraisal. Am J Orthod 1976; 70 (02) 179-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Martina R, Bucci E, Gagliardi M, Laino A. [Relation between the value of the Wits Appraisal and the inclination of the occlusal plane]. Minerva Stomatol 1982; 31 (03) 385-389
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Langford Jr NM. The Herbst appliance. J Clin Orthod 1981; 15 (08) 558-561
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Jakobsone G, Latkauskiene D, McNamara Jr JA. Mechanisms of Class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase Class II therapy: 1 year follow-up. Prog Orthod 2013; 14: 27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Martin J, Pancherz H. Mandibular incisor position changes in relation to amount of bite jumping during Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment: a radiographic-cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136 (01) 44-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Pancherz H, Bjerklin K. Mandibular incisor inclination, tooth irregularity, and gingival recessions after Herbst therapy: a 32-year follow-up study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146 (03) 310-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment: A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982; 82 (02) 104-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 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 (05) 582-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Yang X, Zhu Y, Long H. et al. The effectiveness of the Herbst appliance for patients with Class II malocclusion: A meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38 (03) 324-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar