ArticlePDF Available

Dentoskeletal Changes in Class II Subjects following Treatment with Twin Block and Herbst Appliance

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

p>Objective: To compare the mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in Class II patients treated by Twin Block versus Herbst appliance. Materials & Method: The study was conducted at the Orthodontic Department of Children’s Hospital and Institute of Child Health and de’Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. The study involved 50 patients those were randomized in equal numbers according to lottery method to either Group-1 (Twin block) or Group-2 (Herbst). Mean changes in SNA, SNB and IMPA at the end of treatment was calculated by subtracting Pretreatment measurements (T1) from post treatment measurements (T2). Student t–test was used to compare the mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in both groups. Result: The comparison showed that the mean difference recorded in SNA values was -1.06±0.62 in Group-1 and -1.28±0.61 in Group-2 (p-Value 0.07), SNB was 2.14±0.70 in Group-1 and 1.22±0.55 in Group-2, (p-Value 0.001) while IMPA was 1.58±0.64 in Group-1 and 4.8±1.31 in Group-2 (p-Value 0.001). Conclusion: There was a significant difference between mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in Class II patients treated by twin block when compared to Herbst appliance. </p
Content may be subject to copyright.
Orthodontic Journal of Nepal, Vol. 8 No. 1, June 2018
18
INTRODUCTION
Treatment plan of growing Class II patients should be
directed towards solving the dento-skeletal disharmony
in order to obtain favorable facial aesthetics.1,2
Treatment of Class II malocclusion may involve the
use of orthopedic appliances, extra oral traction and
functional appliances. Functional appliance therapy
is a commonly used treatment protocol for growing
Class II patients with mandibular deciency.3
The selection of functional appliances is dependent
upon several factors which can be categorized into
patient factors e.g. age and compliance, and clinical
factors e.g. preference/familiarity and laboratory
facilities. Different types of functional appliances are
available for the correction of Class II skeletal and
occlusal disharmonies.4 Twin Block (TB) and Herbst (HB)
appliances are among the most popular functional
appliances.5 TB appliance is the most preferred
functional appliance in UK,6 and HB is most commonly
used in USA.7
Dr Khurram Shahzad,1 Dr Javeeria Asif Cheema,2 Dr Muhammad Azeem,3 Dr Waheed Ul Hamid4
1Resident Orthodontics, Children's Hospital & Institute of Child Health, Lahore
2Assoc Prof, 4Professor Orthodontics, de'Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan
3Asst Prof Orthodontics, Dental Section-Faisalabad Medical University/Punjab Medical College, Pakistan
Correspondence: Dr Muhammad Azeem; Email: dental.concepts@hotmail.com
Dentoskeletal Changes in Class II Subjects following Treatment
with Twin Block and Herbst Appliance
Research Article Randomized Controlled Trial
ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in Class II patients treated by Twin Block versus Herbst
appliance.
Materials & Method: The study was conducted at the Orthodontic Department of Children’s Hospital and Institute of Child
Health and de’Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. The study involved 50 patients those were randomized in equal
numbers according to lottery method to either Group-1 (Twin block) or Group-2 (Herbst). Mean changes in SNA, SNB and IMPA
at the end of treatment was calculated by subtracting Pretreatment measurements (T1) from post treatment measurements
(T2). Student t–test was used to compare the mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in both groups.
Result: The comparison showed that the mean difference recorded in SNA values was -1.06±0.62 in Group-1 and -1.28±0.61 in
Group-2 (p-Value 0.07), SNB was 2.14±0.70 in Group-1 and 1.22±0.55 in Group-2, (p-Value 0.001) while IMPA was 1.58±0.64 in
Group-1 and 4.8±1.31 in Group-2 (p-Value 0.001).
Conclusion: There was a signicant difference between mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in Class II patients treated
by twin block when compared to Herbst appliance.
Keywords: Class II malocclusion, dentoskeletal, Twin Block, Herbst
TB was rst introduced by Clark in 1988 and consists of
two separate, upper and lower, removable plates with
acrylic blocks trimmed to an angle of 70 degrees.8 TB is
widely used because of its high patient acceptability
and ability to produce rapid treatment changes.8
The HB appliance was rst introduced in 1900s by
Emil Herbst as a xed bite-jumping device, and later
Pancherz reintroduced it in the 1970’s as a banded
appliance.9 It has been reported that HB appliance
can correct Class II skeletal problems by encouraging
mandibular growth.10
Many studies have been carried out on soft tissue
effects of these appliances,2-5 but only a few studies
have compared the dentoskeletal effects of TB and HB
in Class II patients.11-13 In addition, no single study has
been carried out specically on dentoskeletal effects
of TB and HB in South Asian population. It should be
kept in mind that skeletal effects vary among subjects,
between gender groups, with genetic inuence and
with the time of therapy.
19
Orthodontic Journal of Nepal, Vol. 8 No. 1, June 2018
Thus the objective of this study was to compare the
mean changes in dentoskeletal parameters in Class II
patients treated by Twin Block versus Herbst appliance.
Our hypothesis was that there is a difference between
mean changes of dentoskeletal parameters (SNA, SNB
& IMPA) in Class II patients treated by twin block versus
Herbst appliance.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
The randomized controlled trial was conducted after
taking ethical approval and informed consent in
the Orthodontic Department of Children’s Hospital
and Institute of Child Health and de’Montmorency
College of Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan. Sample size
of 50 cases (25 in each group) was calculated with
95% condence level, 80% power of test, and taking
expected mean ± S.D of mean change in SNA in both
groups, i.e. -1.35±1.11 in Herbst group vs. -0.75±1.03 in
Twin block group in Class II patients.13
Patients were selected according to following
inclusion criteria: Skeletal Class II relationship (ANB >4°,
SNB<78°), patients’ age ranged between 9-13 years,
Overjet ≥ 5mm, SN–MP= 32°±4° and bilateral Class
II molar and canine relation. Patients with previous
history of orthodontic treatment, congenitally missing
or extracted permanent tooth (except third molars)
and syndromes, skeletal dysplasia were excluded.
Study involved 50 patients those were randomized in
equal numbers according to lottery method to either
Group-1 (Twin block) or Group-2 (Herbst). For Group-I,
Twin block group patients were instructed to wear the
appliance full time. For Group II, Acrylic splint design
of Herbst was inserted. When a normal or corrected
overjet in retruded position was recorded, the active
treatment was nished and cephalometric records of
patients were taken in both groups.
Dentoskeletal measurements (SNA, SNB & IMPA) were
measured on lateral cephalometric radiographs
before start of the treatment and at the time of
removal of appliance and these measurements were
taken by the researcher himself to address bias. Mean
of dentoskeletal changes was measured at the end of
treatment by calculating the difference between post-
treatment and pre-treatment values taken on lateral
cephalogram. In dental part; only one value of Lower
incisor to mandibular plane angle (IMPA) was taken by
measuring the angle between body of mandible and
long axis of most proclined lower mandibular incisor.
In skeletal part; two measurements were taken: SNA
angle (SNA): inward angle between NA line and Sella–
nasion (SN) plane with normal value 80-84°, SNB angle
(SNB): inward angle between NB line and SN plane
with normal value 78-82°.
All statistical analysis was done using SPSS 20.0.
Pre-treatment and Post treatment dentoskeletal
measurements and age were presented as means
and standard deviation. Gender was presented by
frequency and percentage. Mean changes in SNA,
SNB and IMPA at the end of treatment was calculated
by subtracting Pretreatment measurements (T1) from
post treatment measurements (T2). Student t –test was
used to compare the mean changes in dentoskeletal
parameters in both groups. p≤0.05 was considered as
signicant. The data was stratied for age and gender,
to address the effect modiers. Post stratication
student t–test was applied to check the signicance,
with p≤0.05 as signicant.
RESULT
Age and gender distribution of the patients is shown in
Table 1. Comparison of mean changes in dentoskeletal
parameters in Class II patients treated by Twin block
versus Herbst appliance is given in Table 2. The data
were stratied for age and gender to control the effect
modiers, which showed insignicant ndings with
regards to age and gender.
Table 1: Distribution of sample according to age and gender
Sample
Group-1 (Twin block) n=25 Group-2 (Herbst) n=25
No. % No. %
Age
(in years)
9-11 18 72 16 64
12-13 728 936
Mean 10.66±1.32 10.86±1.41
Gender Male 10 40 936
Female 15 60 16 64
Total 25 100 25 100
Shahzad K, Cheema JA, Azeem M, Hamid WU : Dentoskeletal Changes in Class II Subjects following Treatment with Twin Block and Herbst Appliance
Orthodontic Journal of Nepal, Vol. 8 No. 1, June 2018
20
The differences in mean pre-treatment SNA values were
not statistically signicant. Mean post-treatment SNA
values were 81.18 in Group-1 and 80.8 in Group-2, SNB
was 84.38 in Group-1 and 76.34 in Group-2, IMPA was
97.2 in Group-1 and 100.62 in Group-2. The differences
were signicant. The ndings for post-treatment mean
difference in SNA values was -1.06 in Group-1 and
-1.28 in Group-2, SNB was 2.14 in Group-1 and 1.22 in
Group-2, IMPA was 1.58 in Group-1 and 4.8 in Group-2.
The differences were signicant, except for SNA values.
DISCUSSION
Results of the current study showed that there was
a signicant difference between mean changes in
dentoskeletal parameters (SNA, SNB, IMPA) in Class
II patients treated by twin block when compared to
Herbst appliance. In comparison of results of Baysal
and Uysal,13 SNB angle was increased in Twin block
group than in Herbst group. The change in SNA angle
was greater for Herbst group than that in Twin block
group. The increase in lower incisor proclination (IMPA)
was also found greater in Herbst group than that in
Twin Block group. Similar ndings were recorded in our
study.
Schaefer et al14 compared the effects of Twin-block vs.
Herbst for correcting Class II disharmony, they were of
the view that treatment effects of both protocols led
to a normalization of dentoskeletal parameters at the
end of the overall treatment period. However, only
minor differences were detected in the treatment and
Table 2: Comparison of mean change in dentoskeletal parameters
Parameter
Group-1 (Twin block) Group-2 (Herbst)
p-Value
Mean SD Mean SD
Pre-treatment
SNA 82.24 0.82 82.08 0.97 0.37
SNB 75.26 1.29 75.12 1.32 0.59
IMPA 95.62 2.27 95.82 2.32 0.66
Post-treatment
SNA 81.18 0.77 80.80 1.16 0.05*
SNB 84.38 1.07 76.34 1.44 0.001*
IMPA 97.20 2.33 100.62 2.83 0.001*
Mean difference
SNA -1.06 0.62 -1.28 0.61 0.07
SNB 2.14 0.70 1.22 0.55 0.001*
IMPA 1.58 0.64 4.80 1.31 0.001*
*Statistically signicant at p≤0.05
post-treatment effects of crown herbst and twin-block
appliance.
It is well known that a point in disfavor of HB treatment
is a proclination of lower incisors due to the forces
exerted on the lower teeth by the same telescope
device. Various modications of original HB have been
proposed to counter the proclination of mandibular
incisors.15 It has been proved in the literature that
functional appliances do not produce long term
skeletal changes and most of their effects are dento-
alveloar.16 In a prospective controlled trial with twin
blocks and controls to investigate the skeletal and
dental effects showed that the ANB angle reduced by
2° which was almost entirely due to mandibular length
increase which was 2.4 mm compared to the controls
and there was no evidence of a restriction in maxillary
growth.17
Limitations of this study are sample size and single
centre approach. Further studies are required to
validate results of current study.
CONCLUSION
There was a signicant difference between mean
changes in dentoskeletal parameters in Class II
patients treated by twin block when compared to
Herbst appliance.
OJN
Shahzad K, Cheema JA, Azeem M, Hamid WU : Dentoskeletal Changes in Class II Subjects following Treatment with Twin Block and Herbst Appliance
21
Orthodontic Journal of Nepal, Vol. 8 No. 1, June 2018
REFERENCES
1. Dann C, Phillips C, Broder HL, Tulloch JF. Self-concept, Class II malocclusion and early treatment. Angle Orthod. 1995;65:411–6.
2. Quintão C, Brunharo HVP, Menezes RC, Almeida MAO. Soft tissue facial prole changes following functional appliance therapy. Eur J
Orthod. 2006;28:35–41.
3. Baysal A, Uysal T. Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J
Orthod. 2013;35:71–81.
4. Alves PFR, Oliverira AG. World J Orthod. 2008;9:62,e.1-19.
5. Schaefer AT, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L, Baccetti T. A cephalometric comparison of treatment with the Twin-block and stainless steel
crown Herbst appliances followed by xed appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;126:7–15.
6. O’Brien K. Is early treatment for Class II malocclusion effective? Results from a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentof Orthop.
2006;129:64–5.
7. McNamara JA Jr, Brudon WL. Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2001; Needham, Michigan.
8. Clark WJ. Twin Block functional therapy: Applications in Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2002; 2nd edn. Mosby, London.
9. Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance: Its biological effects and clinical use. Am J Orthod. 1985;87:1-20.
10. Burkhardt DR, McNamara JA Jr, Bacetti T. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular advancement: A cephalometric comparison of
comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and Herbst appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;123:108-16.
11. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twinblock appliances. Part I: The hard tissues. Eur J Orthodontics
1998;20:501–16.
12. Siara-Olds NJ, Kulbershb VP, Bergerc J, Bayirli B. Long-term dentoskeletal changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA
functional appliances. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:18–29.
13. Asli Baysal, Tancan Uysal. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular
retrognathy. Euro J Orthod. 2014;36:164–72.
14. Schaefer AT, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L, Baccetti T. A cephalometric comparison of treatment with the Twin-block and stainless steel
crown Herbst appliances followed by xed appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;126(1):7-15.
15. Gracco A, Luca L, Siciliani G. Molar distalization with skeletal anchorage. Aust Orthod J. 2007;23:147–52.
16. Lee RT, Kyi CS, Mack GJ. A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues.
Eur J Ortho. 2007;29(3):272–82.
17. Lund DI, Sandler PJ. The effect of Twin Blocks: A prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998;113:104–10.
Shahzad K, Cheema JA, Azeem M, Hamid WU : Dentoskeletal Changes in Class II Subjects following Treatment with Twin Block and Herbst Appliance
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate dentoskeletal effects of Herbst and Twin Block (TB) appliance therapies in Skeletal Class II malocclusion. Subjects and methods: Herbst group consisted of 11 girls and 9 boys (mean age = 12.74 ± 1.43 years), TB group comprised of 10 girls and 10 boys (mean age = 13.0 ± 1.32 years), and control group included 9 girls and 11 boys (mean age = 12.17 ± 1.47 years). Mean treatment/observation times were 15.81 ± 5.96 months for Herbst, 16.20 ± 7.54 months for TB, and 15.58 ± 3.13 months for control group. Pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) lateral cephalograms were traced using a modified Pancherz's cephalometric analysis. Inter-group differences were evaluated with one-way analysis of variance, and intra-group differences were assessed with paired samples t-test at the P < 0.05 level. Results: In control group, all sagittal and vertical skeletal measurements increased as a result of continuing growth. However, skeletal discrepancy and overjet remained unchanged. After functional appliance therapy, greater increases were recorded in TB group for all mandibular skeletal measurements compared with those in control group. Upper dental arch distalization and lower incisor protrusion were significant in Herbst group, compared with control. All face height measurements increased after functional appliance therapy. Implications and conclusions: In TB group, the treatment effects were mainly due to mandibular skeletal changes. Both skeletal and dental changes contribute to Class II correction with Herbst appliance therapy. Herbst appliance may be especially useful in Skeletal Class II patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion and mandibular dentoalveolar retrusion, whereas TB appliance may be preferred for skeletal mandibular retrognathy patients.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the changes in soft tissue profile related to treatment with Twin Block and Herbst appliances. Sixty Class II, division 1, mandibular retrognathic patients were divided into three groups. Forty patients were randomly allocated to one of two functional appliance treatment groups. The first group comprised 11 girls and 9 boys (mean age= 12.74 ± 1.43 years) treated with the Herbst appliance. The second group comprised 10 girls and 10 boys (mean age = 13.0 ± 1.32 years) who received treatment with Twin Block appliance. The untreated control group included 9 girls and 11 boys with a mean age of 12.17 ± 1.47 years. Mean treatment time was 15.81 ± 5.96 and 16.20 ± 7.54 months for Herbst and Twin Block groups, respectively. The observation period of the control group was 15.58 ± 3.13 months. Pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) cephalograms were used to evaluate skeletal, dentoalveolar, and especially soft tissue changes. The groups were compared at T0 and T1 using analysis of variance, and treatment/observation differences (T1 - T0) were evaluated with paired samples t-test at P < 0.05 level. Soft tissue convexity, H angle, and mentolabial angle decreased in both treatment groups compared to control. Statistically significant treatment changes were found for mandibular soft tissue measurements in Twin Block group and to a lesser extend in Herbst group. Both appliances reduced the soft tissue profile convexity when the nose is not taken into consideration. Greater advancement of mandibular soft tissues was observed in Twin Block group.
Article
Full-text available
A prospective clinical study with a random allocation of 47 adolescent patients to three different functional appliance groups was established and compared with an untreated control group over a 9-month period. Treatment was undertaken with either a Bionator, Twin Block, or Bass appliance. Pre- and post-treatment cephalograms were used to quantify the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes produced by the appliances and compared with those observed in the control group as a result of growth. Both the Bionator and Twin Block appliances demonstrated a statistically significant increase in mandibular length (3.9 +/- 2.7 mm; 3.7 +/- 2.1 mm, respectively) compared with the control group (P < 0.05), with an anterior movement of pogonion and point B. Highly statistically significant increases (P < 0.01) were seen in lower face heights for all the appliance groups compared with the control group. The Twin Block group showed the least forward movement of point A due to a change in the inclination of the maxillary plane. The Bionator and Twin Block groups showed statistically significant reductions in the inclination of the upper incisors to the maxillary plane (P < 0.05). The Bass group showed minimal change in the inclination of the lower labial segment to the mandibular plane. The Bionator group demonstrated the greatest proclination of the lower labial segment (4.0 +/- 3.6 degrees). Clinically important changes were measured in all the appliance groups when compared with the control group. Differences were also identified between the functional appliance groups. The Twin Block appliance and, to a lesser extent, the Bionator appeared the most effective in producing sagittal and vertical changes.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in the facial profile resulting from the use of a twin block (TB) functional appliance. The sample comprised 38 patients (24 males and 14 females) with a Class II division 1 malocclusion. Nineteen subjects were treated with a functional appliance while the remaining 19, who did not undergo any intervention, served as the control. The mean age of the treated group was 9.5 years (SD 10 months) and of the control group 9.9 years (SD 13 months). Lateral cephalograms were obtained for all subjects at the initial consultation and again after one year. The changes in facial profile, resulting from treatment with the TB, were analysed after the influence of growth had been taken into account. The results showed a significant improvement in the facial profile, which closely followed the underlying dentoskeletal changes. Thus, the most significant effects were a total facial profile improvement, retraction of the upper lip and anterior movement of soft tissue pogonion (P < 0.05). Subjects treated with a TB appliance achieved improved facial harmony, but such changes were not observed in the control group.
Article
To determine if the long-term dentoskeletal changes in patients treated with tooth-borne functional appliances were comparable to each other and to matched controls. The experimental sample consisted of 80 consecutively treated patients who were equally divided into Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA) groups. The control group comprised 21 children with untreated skeletal Class II malocclusions. Lateral cephalograms were taken for the treated group at T1 (initial records), T2 (completion of functional therapy), and T3 (completion of fixed appliance therapy). A repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences between and within groups. If ANOVA results were significant, Tukey-Kramer tests were used to determine where the significant differences occurred. (1) Temporary restriction of maxillary growth was found in the MARA group (T2-T1). (2) SNB increased more with the Twin Block and Herbst groups when compared with the Bionator and MARA groups. (3) The occlusal plane significantly changed in the Herbst and Twin Block groups. (4) The Twin Block group expressed better control of the vertical dimension. (5) The overbite, overjet, and Wits appraisal decreased significantly with all of the appliances. (6) The Twin Block group had significant flaring of the lower incisors at the end of treatment. (7) Over the long-term, there were no significant soft tissue changes among treated and untreated subjects. No significant dentoskeletal differences were observed long-term, among the various treatment groups and matched controls.
Article
The purpose of this article is to survey the Herbst bite-jumping method. An outline of appliance design and appliance construction is given. The effects of the treatment method on the dentofacial complex and on the masticatory system have been analyzed with the aid of dental casts, cephalometric roentgenograms, and electromyographic registrations from the masticatory muscles. The use and effectiveness of the Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusions are exemplified by clinical cases, some of which were followed for 5 years after treatment. The Herbst appliance is most effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusions, provided it is used as indicated. Thus, the appliance must be limited to growing persons only. The treatment method should not be looked upon as a last resort to be used only when other treatment approaches have failed. Treatment prognosis is best in subjects with a brachyfacial growth pattern. Unfavorable growth, unstable occlusal conditions, and persisting oral habits after treatment are potential risk factors for occlusal relapses. As treatment with the Herbst appliance is performed during a relatively short period, the hard and soft tissues (teeth, bone, and musculature) would need some time for adaptation to the new mandibular position after the appliance is removed. Posttreatment retention as a routine with a removable functional appliance is therefore recommended.
Article
Increased overjet has been associated with teasing, negative stereotyping, and low self-concept. Early treatment for children with Class II malocclusion is often recommended under the assumption that an improved dental appearance may benefit a child by increasing his or her social acceptance and hence self-concept. The self-concept of 208 patients, age 7 to 15 years and with increased overjet, was measured before treatment using the Piers-Harris self-concept scale; a subset of 87 of these children were measured again after 15 months of early growth modification. The mean self-concept score for these children was above the population norm, and there was no association between the child's score and the magnitude of his or her overjet or age. Although some significant associations were found between Class II malocclusion features and self-concept scores, the explained variation in self-concept scores was low (R2 from 5% to 8%). There was no change in the mean self-concept score of these children during early treatment, nor was there any association between reduction of Class II malocclusion features and improved self-concept. These findings suggest that children with Class II malocclusion do not generally present for treatment with low self-concept and, on average, self-concept does not improve during the brief period of early orthodontic treatment.
Article
This prospective controlled study investigated the net effects of the Twin Block functional appliance taking into account the effects of normal growth in an untreated control group. The treatment group consisted of 36 subjects, mean age of 12.4 years, consecutively treated with Twin Block appliances for an average period of 0.9 years. Each subject had immediate pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms. The control group consisted of 27 subjects with a mean age of 12.1 years. These patients were observed for a mean time of 1.2 years and had radiographic investigation at the initial consultation and immediately before the start of Twin Block therapy. The data were then annualized and subjected to multiple regression analysis. In the treatment group, a reduction in ANB of 2.0 degrees (p < 0.001) was observed largely because of an increase in SNB of 1.9 degrees (p < 0.001). No statistically significant restraint in the maxillary growth was observed. Treatment resulted in an increase in Ar-Pog of 5.1 mm (p < 0.001) compared with the control group increase in Ar-Pog of 2.7 mm, resulting in a net gain of 2.4 mm. The overjet was reduced by combination of a net maxillary incisor retroclination of 10.8 degrees (p < 0.001), net mandibular incisor proclination of 7.9 degrees (p < 0.001) and forward movement of the mandible. Buccal segment relationships were corrected by means of lower molar eruption, restraint in the eruption of the upper molars and forward growth or repositioning of the mandible. Any possible fossa adaption was not assessed.
Article
This study compared the effects of 2 treatment protocols for correcting Class II disharmony. The first phase of treatment consisted of functional jaw orthopedics with either the Twin-block or the stainless-steel crown Herbst appliance; the second phase consisted of comprehensive fixed-appliance therapy in both protocols. Each of the 2 samples comprised 28 consecutively treated Class II patients. The mean age at the start of treatment was approximately 12 years, and the mean age at the end of the treatment was approximately 14.5 years in both groups. The duration of the treatment phase with the functional appliance was approximately 13 months, and the duration of fixed-appliance therapy was approximately 15 months in both groups. The sex distribution was identical in the 2 groups. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed at the start of treatment (T1) and at the end of the overall treatment protocol (T2). Nonparametric statistics were used for comparisons of starting forms and of the T1-T2 changes between the 2 treatment groups. The stainless-steel crown Herbst appliance and the Twin-block appliance produced very similar therapeutic modifications in Class II patients, although the Twin-block group exhibited almost 2 mm greater correction of the maxillomandibular differential than did the crown Herbst group. The treatment effects of both protocols led to a normalization of the dentoskeletal parameters at the end of the overall treatment period. Twin-block therapy also induced a greater increase in the height of the mandibular ramus (posterior facial height). Overall, only minor differences were detected in the treatment and posttreatment effects of a compliance-free (crown Herbst) and a noncompliance-free (Twin-block) appliance for correcting Class II disharmony.