Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Herbst treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in retrognathic and prognathic facial types.
Angle Orthod. 2006 Nov; 76(6):930-41.AO

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective pilot study was to analyze and compare the short-term and long-term changes of Herbst treatment in Class II division 1 subjects of the retrognathic and prognathic facial type.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The subject material comprised 10 retrognathic (mean SNA = 74.5 degrees, SNB = 70.4 degrees, ML/NSL = 41.1 degrees) and 16 prognathic (mean SNA = 86.7 degrees, SNB = 81.5 degrees, ML/NSL = 25.1 degrees) Class II division 1 subjects treated with the Herbst appliance for an average period of 7 months. Lateral head films from before (T1), immediately after (T2), 12 months after (T3), and 39 months after (T4) Herbst treatment were analyzed with the SO-analysis (analysis of changes in sagittal occlusion) and standard cephalometrics.

RESULTS

During the treatment period (T2-T1) the two facial type groups showed similar favorable changes for all variables. During the posttreatment periods of 12 months (T3-T2) and 39 months (T4-T2) recovering changes occurred. In the long-term, a tendency of more unfavorable growth changes was stronger (not significant) for retrognathic subjects than for prognathic subjects.

CONCLUSION

On a long-term basis, retrognathic subjects are prone to exhibit more unfavorable mandibular growth changes than prognathic subjects and, thus, might exhibit a greater risk for an occlusal relapse when a stable Class I occlusion is not attained after treatment.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany. niko.c.bock@dentist.med.uni-giessen.deNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17090166

Citation

Bock, Niko, and Hans Pancherz. "Herbst Treatment of Class II Division 1 Malocclusions in Retrognathic and Prognathic Facial Types." The Angle Orthodontist, vol. 76, no. 6, 2006, pp. 930-41.
Bock N, Pancherz H. Herbst treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in retrognathic and prognathic facial types. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(6):930-41.
Bock, N., & Pancherz, H. (2006). Herbst treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in retrognathic and prognathic facial types. The Angle Orthodontist, 76(6), 930-41.
Bock N, Pancherz H. Herbst Treatment of Class II Division 1 Malocclusions in Retrognathic and Prognathic Facial Types. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(6):930-41. PubMed PMID: 17090166.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Herbst treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in retrognathic and prognathic facial types. AU - Bock,Niko, AU - Pancherz,Hans, PY - 2005/10/01/received PY - 2005/11/01/accepted PY - 2006/11/9/pubmed PY - 2007/1/17/medline PY - 2006/11/9/entrez SP - 930 EP - 41 JF - The Angle orthodontist JO - Angle Orthod VL - 76 IS - 6 N2 - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective pilot study was to analyze and compare the short-term and long-term changes of Herbst treatment in Class II division 1 subjects of the retrognathic and prognathic facial type. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subject material comprised 10 retrognathic (mean SNA = 74.5 degrees, SNB = 70.4 degrees, ML/NSL = 41.1 degrees) and 16 prognathic (mean SNA = 86.7 degrees, SNB = 81.5 degrees, ML/NSL = 25.1 degrees) Class II division 1 subjects treated with the Herbst appliance for an average period of 7 months. Lateral head films from before (T1), immediately after (T2), 12 months after (T3), and 39 months after (T4) Herbst treatment were analyzed with the SO-analysis (analysis of changes in sagittal occlusion) and standard cephalometrics. RESULTS: During the treatment period (T2-T1) the two facial type groups showed similar favorable changes for all variables. During the posttreatment periods of 12 months (T3-T2) and 39 months (T4-T2) recovering changes occurred. In the long-term, a tendency of more unfavorable growth changes was stronger (not significant) for retrognathic subjects than for prognathic subjects. CONCLUSION: On a long-term basis, retrognathic subjects are prone to exhibit more unfavorable mandibular growth changes than prognathic subjects and, thus, might exhibit a greater risk for an occlusal relapse when a stable Class I occlusion is not attained after treatment. SN - 0003-3219 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17090166/Herbst_treatment_of_Class_II_division_1_malocclusions_in_retrognathic_and_prognathic_facial_types_ L2 - https://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article-lookup/doi/10.2319/100605-352 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -