INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Pedro Lima Emmerich Oliveira; Andrea Fonseca Jardim da Motta; Clarice Julia Guerra; José Nelson Mucha Journal: Dental Press J Orthod Date: 2015 Mar-Apr