Literature DB >> 15747811

Efficiency of three mandibular anchorage forms in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation.

Dominique Weschler1, Hans Pancherz.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the efficiency of the mandibular banded and cast splint anchorage forms used in Herbst treatment. The records of 16 Class II:1 subjects treated with mandibular banded premolar anchorage (group A), 19 Class II:1 subjects treated with mandibular banded premolar-molar anchorage (group B), 34 Class II:1 subjects (group C), and 18 Class 11:2 subjects treated with mandibular cast splint anchorage (group D) were screened. The subjects in all four groups were treated for an average period of 0.6 years. Lateral head films were analyzed on four occasions ie, before treatment, after treatment, two years after, and four years after treatment. Mandibular anchorage loss during treatment was measured by the amount of anterior movement and proclination of the lower incisors as well as the anterior movement of the lower molars. During the treatment period a pronounced (P < .001) anchorage loss was found for all anchorage forms ie, incisor anterior movement/proclination as well as anterior movement of the lower molars. When comparing the cast splint anchorage in the Class II:1 and Class II: 2 cases, no difference was found with respect to the amount of mandibular anchorage loss of the incisors. After Herbst treatment, relapsing tooth movements were found in all three anchorage forms. It can be concluded that none of the three mandibular anchorage forms used in Herbst treatment could prevent an anchorage loss. Against all expectations, the cast splint anchorage was not better than the two banded anchorage forms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15747811     DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075<0023:EOTMAF>2.0.CO;2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  15 in total

1.  Changes in alveolar bone support induced by the Herbst appliance: a tomographic evaluation.

Authors:  João Paulo Schwartz; Taisa Boamorte Raveli; Humberto Osvaldo Schwartz-Filho; Dirceu Barnabé Raveli
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr

2.  A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance.

Authors:  Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Linda Frye; Ulrich Gross; Jan Hourfar
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Esthetic perception of facial profile changes in Class II patients treated with Herbst or Forsus appliances.

Authors:  Alexa Helena Kohler Moresca; Nathaly Dias de Moraes; Francielle Topolski; Carlos Flores-Mir; Alexandre Moro; Ricardo Cesar Moresca; Gisele Maria Correr
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Class II division 2 treatment--does skeletal maturity influence success and stability?

Authors:  N C Bock; S Ruf
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 1.938

Review 5.  Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Vasileios F Zymperdikas; Vasiliki Koretsi; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Moschos A Papadopoulos
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Obstructive sleep apnea and mandibular advancement splints: occlusal effects and progression of changes associated with a decade of treatment.

Authors:  Benjamin T Pliska; Hyejin Nam; Hui Chen; Alan A Lowe; Fernanda R Almeida
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 4.062

7.  Herbst treatment with mandibular cast splints--revisited.

Authors:  Tarek El-Fateh; Sabine Ruf
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Control of mandibular incisors with the combined Herbst and completely customized lingual appliance--a pilot study.

Authors:  Dirk Wiechmann; Rainer Schwestka-Polly; Hans Pancherz; Ariane Hohoff
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 2.151

9.  Comparison between Herbst appliances with or without miniscrew anchorage.

Authors:  Antonio Manni; Marco Pasini; Cozzani Mauro
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2012-12

10.  Comparison between an Acrylic Splint Herbst and an Acrylic Splint Miniscrew-Herbst for Mandibular Incisors Proclination Control.

Authors:  Antonio Manni; Marco Pasini; Laura Mazzotta; Sabrina Mutinelli; Claudio Nuzzo; Felice Roberto Grassi; Mauro Cozzani
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2014-05-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.