What does headgear add to Herbst treatment and to retention?
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.
[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. · 1.21 Impact Factor