Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

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 Sep 11; 14:27.PO

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown Herbst appliance used alone for a single phase of therapy followed by a 1-year observation period.

METHODS

Forty patients (mean age 13.6±1.3 years) with a stable Class I occlusion 1 year following the treatment with the crown Herbst appliance were selected from a prospective sample of 180 consecutively treated Class II patients. No other appliances were used during treatment or during the follow-up period. The dentoskeletal changes were compared with a matched sample of untreated Class II subjects (mean age 13.9±1.6 years). Lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment, after Herbst treatment (1 year), and after 1-year follow-up. Overcorrection was avoided intentionally.

RESULTS

Treatment produced an increase in mandibular length, a decrease in ANB angle, and a restriction in the vertical growth of posterior maxilla. The maxillary molars moved backward and tipped distally. The lower incisors proclined markedly, and the upper incisors became retroclined. During the follow-up period, the changes primarily were dentoalveolar in nature, with marked rebound of the upper molars and lower incisors, resulting in some increases in overbite and overjet.

CONCLUSIONS

The occlusal correction of Class II malocclusion observed 1 year after the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase therapy was achieved primary due to the dentoalveolar changes and only limited skeletal change occurred.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Orthodontics, Riga Stradins University, Dzirciema street 20, Riga LV 1007, Latvia. g.jakobsone@latnet.lv.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24326090

Citation

Jakobsone, Gundega, et al. "Mechanisms of Class II Correction Induced By the Crown Herbst Appliance as a Single-phase Class II Therapy: 1 Year Follow-up." Progress in Orthodontics, vol. 14, 2013, p. 27.
Jakobsone G, Latkauskiene D, McNamara 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.
Jakobsone, G., Latkauskiene, D., & McNamara, J. A. (2013). Mechanisms of Class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase Class II therapy: 1 year follow-up. Progress in Orthodontics, 14, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-27
Jakobsone G, Latkauskiene D, McNamara 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 Sep 11;14:27. PubMed PMID: 24326090.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Mechanisms of Class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase Class II therapy: 1 year follow-up. AU - Jakobsone,Gundega, AU - Latkauskiene,Dalia, AU - McNamara,James A,Jr Y1 - 2013/09/11/ PY - 2012/10/06/received PY - 2013/04/19/accepted PY - 2013/12/12/entrez PY - 2013/12/12/pubmed PY - 2014/11/2/medline SP - 27 EP - 27 JF - Progress in orthodontics JO - Prog Orthod VL - 14 N2 - BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown Herbst appliance used alone for a single phase of therapy followed by a 1-year observation period. METHODS: Forty patients (mean age 13.6±1.3 years) with a stable Class I occlusion 1 year following the treatment with the crown Herbst appliance were selected from a prospective sample of 180 consecutively treated Class II patients. No other appliances were used during treatment or during the follow-up period. The dentoskeletal changes were compared with a matched sample of untreated Class II subjects (mean age 13.9±1.6 years). Lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment, after Herbst treatment (1 year), and after 1-year follow-up. Overcorrection was avoided intentionally. RESULTS: Treatment produced an increase in mandibular length, a decrease in ANB angle, and a restriction in the vertical growth of posterior maxilla. The maxillary molars moved backward and tipped distally. The lower incisors proclined markedly, and the upper incisors became retroclined. During the follow-up period, the changes primarily were dentoalveolar in nature, with marked rebound of the upper molars and lower incisors, resulting in some increases in overbite and overjet. CONCLUSIONS: The occlusal correction of Class II malocclusion observed 1 year after the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase therapy was achieved primary due to the dentoalveolar changes and only limited skeletal change occurred. SN - 2196-1042 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24326090/Mechanisms_of_Class_II_correction_induced_by_the_crown_Herbst_appliance_as_a_single_phase_Class_II_therapy:_1_year_follow_up_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-27 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -