Frye et alĮvaluated dentoskeletal effects in Class II patients treated with two fixed functional appliances and concluded that an increase in patient age entails more inclination of the maxillary and mandibular incisors and the growth-inhibiting effect on the maxilla is a common skeletal effect in younger patients.įew studies to date have analyzed the treatment effects of the Herbst appliance after the growth peak,Īnd none of these studies have compared these effects with a comparable control group. On the other hand, Chhibber et alįound no difference in overall dentoskeletal effects in Class II patients treated with a semirigid fixed functional appliance before or after the pubertal growth spurt. They found that the amount of skeletal change contributing to overjet and molar correction was smaller in the young adult group (22 and 25%, respectively) than in the early adolescent group (39 and 41%, respectively). Ruf and PancherzĮvaluated dental and skeletal changes responsible for Class II correction in young patients. Lingual inclination of the maxillary incisors and buccal inclination of the mandibular incisors were significantly greater in the late treated group than in the early treated group. Dentoalveolar changes represent the main differences between the late and the early treated patients. Konik et alĮvaluated Class II patients before and after the pubertal growth peak treated with the Herbst appliance. They concluded that sagittal condylar growth was most pronounced in the peak period and incisors inclination was most extensive in the postpeak period. Patients were divided into three groups according to the growth-stage at pretreatment: prepeak, peak, and postpeak. However, the treatment effects with the Herbst appliance, regarding the growth period, are still questionable.Įvaluated the treatment effects of 70 consecutive patients with Class II malocclusion treated with the Herbst appliance. In an attempt to minimize the problem of patient compliance since the mandibular advancement was performed by a fixed device, promoting a continuous force 24 hours a day. In 1979, the Herbst appliance was reintroduced by Hans Pancherz However, some studies have shown that compliance of Class II patients with removable functional appliances is deficient. Many of these appliances are removable, which require good compliance and motivation of the patient. There are several types of functional appliances most of which are similar to each other in treatment effects. Thus, the use of functional orthopedic appliances, which redirects mandibular growth and should be used during the craniofacial growth, represents a great indication that provides good occlusion and harmony of the facial profile. This malocclusion may be related to protrusion of the maxilla, as well as of the maxillary teeth, retrusion of the mandible and/or mandibular teeth, or a combination of these factors.Īmong the types of skeletal Class II malocclusion, mandibular retrusion is the most frequent in orthodontics. 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.Ĭlass II malocclusion is related to a deficient relationship between upper and lower apical bases, and may be due to dentoalveolar or skeletal components. Additionally, significantly greater corrections in overbite, overjet, and molar relationship were observed in the experimental than in the control groups. Comparisons between experimental and control groups at pretreatment and of the treatment changes were performed by Mann–Whitney or independentĮxperimental group exhibited a significantly greater labial inclination of the mandibular incisors in comparison to the control group. Comparisons between the two groups were performed using initial and final lateral cephalograms. 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. 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.Ī 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.
0 kommentar(er)
