AIM: To compare dentoskeletal and soft tissue treatment effects of two alternative Class II division 1 treatment modalities (maxillary first permanent molar extraction versus Herbst appliance). METHODS:One-hundred-fifty-four Class II division 1 patients that had either been treated with extractions of the upper first molars and a lightwire multibracket (MB) appliance (n = 79; 38 girls, 41 boys) or non-extraction by means of a Herbst-MB appliance (n = 75; 35 girls, 40 boys). The groups were matched on age and sex. The average age at the start of treatment was 12.7 years for the extraction and for 13.0 years for the Herbst group. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were retrospectively analyzed using a standard cephalometric analysis and the sagittal occlusal analysis according to Pancherz. RESULTS: The SNA decrease was 1.10° (p = 0.001) more pronounced in the extraction group, the SNB angle increased 1.49° more in the Herbst group (p = 0.000). In the extraction group, a decrease in SNB angle (0.49°) was observed. The soft tissue profile convexity (N-Sn-Pog) decreased in both groups, which was 0.78° more (n. s.) pronounced in the Herbst group. The nasolabial angle increased significantly more (+ 2.33°, p = 0.025) in the extraction group. The mechanism of overjet correction in the extraction group was predominantly dental (65% dental and 35% skeletal changes), while in the Herbst group it was predominantly skeletal (58% skeletal and 42% dental changes) in origin. CONCLUSION: Both treatment methods were successful and led to a correction of the Class II division 1 malocclusion. Whereas for upper first molar extraction treatment more dental and maxillary effects can be expected, in case of Herbst treatment skeletal and mandibular effects prevail.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare dentoskeletal and soft tissue treatment effects of two alternative Class II division 1 treatment modalities (maxillary first permanent molar extraction versus Herbst appliance). METHODS: One-hundred-fifty-four Class II division 1 patients that had either been treated with extractions of the upper first molars and a lightwire multibracket (MB) appliance (n = 79; 38 girls, 41 boys) or non-extraction by means of a Herbst-MB appliance (n = 75; 35 girls, 40 boys). The groups were matched on age and sex. The average age at the start of treatment was 12.7 years for the extraction and for 13.0 years for the Herbst group. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were retrospectively analyzed using a standard cephalometric analysis and the sagittal occlusal analysis according to Pancherz. RESULTS: The SNA decrease was 1.10° (p = 0.001) more pronounced in the extraction group, the SNB angle increased 1.49° more in the Herbst group (p = 0.000). In the extraction group, a decrease in SNB angle (0.49°) was observed. The soft tissue profile convexity (N-Sn-Pog) decreased in both groups, which was 0.78° more (n. s.) pronounced in the Herbst group. The nasolabial angle increased significantly more (+ 2.33°, p = 0.025) in the extraction group. The mechanism of overjet correction in the extraction group was predominantly dental (65% dental and 35% skeletal changes), while in the Herbst group it was predominantly skeletal (58% skeletal and 42% dental changes) in origin. CONCLUSION: Both treatment methods were successful and led to a correction of the Class II division 1 malocclusion. Whereas for upper first molar extraction treatment more dental and maxillary effects can be expected, in case of Herbst treatment skeletal and mandibular effects prevail.
Authors: Johan Willem Booij; Marco Serafin; Rosamaria Fastuca; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Alberto Caprioglio Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Jan Hourfar; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Ulrich Gross; Linda Frye; Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 3.573