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
 · 
71 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of several Class II malocclusion treatments on condylar growth and positioning of the mandible. The material comprised series of lateral cephalograms obtained at the start, after about 6 months, and after about 12 months of treatment from 3 groups of consecutively treated patients who used a headgear-activator with stepwise mandibular advancement (HGA-S), a headgear-activator with maximum jumping of the mandible (HGA-M), and a headgear-Herbst appliance with stepwise advancement (HGH-S), respectively. Six-month growth data from matched controls were used to calculate the net treatment effects. Mandibular prognathism was enhanced after stepwise advancement but not after maximum jumping, and only during the initial phase of therapy; the effect was significantly greater for the fixed functional appliance than for the removable functional appliance. Lower-facial height was increased by the HGA-S, unchanged by the HGA-M, and restrained by the HGH-S. The low construction bite of the HGH-S meant that the extent of bone apposition on the posterior and superior parts of the condyle was similar, whereas the high construction bite of the HGA-S and the HGA-M meant that the effect on the superior part was greater, but only significantly so after stepwise advancement. The mode of jumping, the vertical opening, and whether the functional appliance is fixed or removable affect the amount and pattern of condylar growth, and the position of the mandible.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 11/2008; 134(4):525-36. · 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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aims of this research were to establish norms for the sagittal and vertical occlusal cephalometric analyses of Pancherz for Chinese children and compare them with those of a matched white sample. The material comprised lateral cephalograms of a random sample of 405 southern Chinese children (age, 12 years; 200 boys, 205 girls) and an additional sample of 86 British white children (age, 12 years; 43 boys, 43 girls) in Hong Kong. The radiographs were digitized twice. Statistically significant sex differences were found for 9 of 11 parameters in the sagittal occlusal analysis, and 6 of 10 in the vertical occlusal analysis in the Chinese sample, whereas there were no sex differences in the sagittal occlusal analysis and only 2 differences in the vertical occlusal analysis in the white sample. Statistically significant ethnic differences were found for 5 parameters in boys and 8 in girls of the 11 parameters in the sagittal analysis. For the vertical analysis, 7 of 10 parameters in both sexes differed significantly. For the sagittal and vertical occlusal analyses of Pancherz, separate sex-specific standards are needed for Chinese and white children.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 06/2010; 137(6):816-24. · 1.33 Impact Factor