Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Apr; 133(4):509-14.AJ

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Herbst and headgear appliances are considered effective for correcting Class II malocclusions in growing patients, although their skeletal and dental effects differ. In the literature, there is no comparison between profile esthetic outcomes with the Herbst and headgear. The purpose of this study was to provide that comparison.

METHODS

Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 48 matched pairs of growing Class II Division 1 patients treated with either the Herbst appliance or headgear (both combined with fixed appliances) were used to generate pretreatment and posttreatment standardized silhouettes. The silhouettes were randomly arranged and judged by lay people and orthodontic residents using a 7-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses including nonparametric procedures and intraclass correlation were used to compare initial, final, and change profile esthetic scores for the 2 groups of subjects and agreement between evaluators.

RESULTS

Both groups of subjects had significant profile improvements with treatment (P <.05), and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in average final profile scores. Overall, there was strong agreement between the evaluations of laypersons and orthodontic residents.

CONCLUSIONS

Class II Division 1 growing patients treated with either Herbst appliance or headgear (both combined with fixed appliances) will benefit from significantly improved profiles that are equally attractive.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Private Practice, Denver, CO, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

18405814

Citation

Sloss, Erin A C., et al. "Comparison of Soft-tissue Profiles After Treatment With Headgear or Herbst Appliance." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, vol. 133, no. 4, 2008, pp. 509-14.
Sloss EA, Southard KA, Qian F, et al. Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4):509-14.
Sloss, E. A., Southard, K. A., Qian, F., Stock, S. E., Mann, K. R., Meyer, D. L., & Southard, T. E. (2008). Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 133(4), 509-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.050
Sloss EA, et al. Comparison of Soft-tissue Profiles After Treatment With Headgear or Herbst Appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4):509-14. PubMed PMID: 18405814.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance. AU - Sloss,Erin A C, AU - Southard,Karin A, AU - Qian,Fang, AU - Stock,Suzanne E, AU - Mann,Kyle R, AU - Meyer,David L, AU - Southard,Thomas E, PY - 2006/02/01/received PY - 2006/04/12/revised PY - 2006/04/20/accepted PY - 2008/4/15/pubmed PY - 2008/4/29/medline PY - 2008/4/15/entrez SP - 509 EP - 14 JF - American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics JO - Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop VL - 133 IS - 4 N2 - INTRODUCTION: Herbst and headgear appliances are considered effective for correcting Class II malocclusions in growing patients, although their skeletal and dental effects differ. In the literature, there is no comparison between profile esthetic outcomes with the Herbst and headgear. The purpose of this study was to provide that comparison. METHODS: Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 48 matched pairs of growing Class II Division 1 patients treated with either the Herbst appliance or headgear (both combined with fixed appliances) were used to generate pretreatment and posttreatment standardized silhouettes. The silhouettes were randomly arranged and judged by lay people and orthodontic residents using a 7-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses including nonparametric procedures and intraclass correlation were used to compare initial, final, and change profile esthetic scores for the 2 groups of subjects and agreement between evaluators. RESULTS: Both groups of subjects had significant profile improvements with treatment (P <.05), and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in average final profile scores. Overall, there was strong agreement between the evaluations of laypersons and orthodontic residents. CONCLUSIONS: Class II Division 1 growing patients treated with either Herbst appliance or headgear (both combined with fixed appliances) will benefit from significantly improved profiles that are equally attractive. SN - 1097-6752 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18405814/Comparison_of_soft_tissue_profiles_after_treatment_with_headgear_or_Herbst_appliance_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889-5406(07)01310-8 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -