Article

What does headgear add to Herbst treatment and to retention?

Department of Orthodontics, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, West China University, Chengdu, China
Seminars in Orthodontics 01/2003; DOI: 10.1053/sodo.2003.34025

ABSTRACT This study was designed to investigate the effect of adding headgear to the Herbst appliance and the retainer, respectively. The material comprised 2 samples of consecutively treated patients with skeletal Class II malocclusions. The first sample of 22 patients (mean age, 13.2 years) was treated with high-pull headgear Herbst appliance followed by a headgear activator as a retainer, and the second sample of 14 patients (mean age, 12.9 years) was treated with Herbst appliance and an Andresen activator for retention. In both groups, the Herbst appliance was a cast silver splint type with step-by-step advancement of the mandible. Before treatment, there were no significant differences in dentofacial morphology between the groups. Changes during treatment and retention were assessed from lateral cephalograms obtained at start of treatment, after 6 months of treatment, end of treatment (12 months of treatment), and after 6 months of retention. The results showed that the maxillary forward growth was more restrained after 6 months and increasingly more during the 12 months of treatment in the headgear Herbst group, resulting in greater improvement of the jaw-base relationship in that group. The maxilla tilted in the Herbst group but not in the headgear Herbst group. During retention, the positive skeletal changes achieved during active treatment were maintained with the headgear activator, whereas with the Andresen activator there was partial relapse. The overjet correction was similar in both groups, being 9.0 and 9.7 mm, respectively. With the combined headgear concept, 70% of the overjet correction was caused by skeletal changes, whereas in the other group the skeletal contribution was less than 30%. In conclusion, adding headgear to the Herbst resulted in increased orthopedic effect on the maxilla and larger improvement of the jaw-base relationship. The choice of the retention device was critical; the headgear activator maintained the treatment results, whereas the Andresen activator had a negative effect and should not be used as a retainer after Herbst treatment.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
68 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. 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.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 05/2008; 133(4):509-14. · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This case report describes the treatment of a 12-year-old Chinese boy with a Class II skeletal profile, an extreme overjet, and a retrusive mandible. The patient was teased at school because of his appearance, and he was experiencing negative psychosocial impacts, including shyness and falling grades. Orthodontic treatment had a positive psychosocial impact on his life over a period of 10 years. The advantages of using functional appliances are highlighted in this report.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 11/2006; 130(4):540-8. · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes that occur during Class II correction with the Cantilever Bite Jumper (CBJ). This prospective cephalometric study was conducted on 26 subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with the CBJ appliance. A comparison was made with 26 untreated subjects with Class II malocclusion. Lateral head films from before and after CBJ therapy were analyzed through conventional cephalometric and Johnston analyses. Class II correction was accomplished by means of 2.9 mm apical base change, 1.5 mm distal movement of the maxillary molars, and 1.1 mm mesial movement of the mandibular molars. The CBJ exhibited good control of the vertical dimension. The main side effect of the CBJ is that the vertical force vectors of the telescope act as lever arms and can produce mesial tipping of the mandibular molars. The Cantilever Bite Jumper corrects Class II malocclusions with similar percentages of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects.
    The Angle Orthodontist 04/2009; 79(2):221-9. · 1.18 Impact Factor