Xin Yang1, Yafen Zhu1, Hu Long1, Yang Zhou1, Fan Jian1, Niansong Ye1, Meiya Gao1, Wenli Lai2. 1. Department of Orthodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Orthodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China wenlilai@scu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically investigate review in literature the effects of the Herbst appliance for patients with Class II malocclusion patients. METHOD: We performed a comprehensive literature survey on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CENTRAL, SIGLE, and ClinicalTrial.gov up to December 2014. The selection criteria: randomized controlled trials or clinical controlled trials; using any kind of Herbst appliances to correct Class II division 1 malocclusions; skeletal and/or dental changes evaluated through lateral cephalograms. And the exclusion criteria: syndromic patients; individual case reports and series of cases; surgical interventions. Article screening, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and evaluation of evidence quality through GRADE were conducted independently by two well-trained orthodontic doctors. Consensus was made via group discussion of all authors when there is inconsistent information from the two. After that, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to evaluate the robustness of the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twelve clinical controlled trials meet the above-mentioned criteria, and were included in this analysis. All included studies have eleven measures taken during both active treatment effect and long term effect periods, including four angular ones (i.e., SNA, SNB, ANB, mandibular plane angle) and seven linear ones (i.e. Co-Go, Co-Gn, overjet, overbite, molar relationship, A point-OLp, Pg-OLp) during active treatment effect period were statistically pooled. Meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis demonstrated that all these measures showed consistent results except for SNA, ANB, and overbite. Subgroup analysis showed significant changes in SNA, overbite, and Pg-OLp. Publication bias was detected in SNB, mandibular plane angle, and A point-OLp. CONCLUSION: The Herbst appliance is effective for patients with Class II malocclusion in active treatment period. Especially, there are obvious changes on dental discrepancy and skeletal changes on Co-Gn. As to its long-term effects, more evidence is needed to draw conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically investigate review in literature the effects of the Herbst appliance for patients with Class II malocclusionpatients. METHOD: We performed a comprehensive literature survey on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CENTRAL, SIGLE, and ClinicalTrial.gov up to December 2014. The selection criteria: randomized controlled trials or clinical controlled trials; using any kind of Herbst appliances to correct Class II division 1 malocclusions; skeletal and/or dental changes evaluated through lateral cephalograms. And the exclusion criteria: syndromicpatients; individual case reports and series of cases; surgical interventions. Article screening, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and evaluation of evidence quality through GRADE were conducted independently by two well-trained orthodontic doctors. Consensus was made via group discussion of all authors when there is inconsistent information from the two. After that, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to evaluate the robustness of the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twelve clinical controlled trials meet the above-mentioned criteria, and were included in this analysis. All included studies have eleven measures taken during both active treatment effect and long term effect periods, including four angular ones (i.e., SNA, SNB, ANB, mandibular plane angle) and seven linear ones (i.e. Co-Go, Co-Gn, overjet, overbite, molar relationship, A point-OLp, Pg-OLp) during active treatment effect period were statistically pooled. Meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis demonstrated that all these measures showed consistent results except for SNA, ANB, and overbite. Subgroup analysis showed significant changes in SNA, overbite, and Pg-OLp. Publication bias was detected in SNB, mandibular plane angle, and A point-OLp. CONCLUSION: The Herbst appliance is effective for patients with Class II malocclusion in active treatment period. Especially, there are obvious changes on dental discrepancy and skeletal changes on Co-Gn. As to its long-term effects, more evidence is needed to draw conclusions.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Victor Montori; Gunn Vist; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Ben Djulbegovic; David Atkins; Yngve Falck-Ytter; John W Williams; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan L Norris; Elie A Akl; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Giorgio Cacciatore; Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni; Lisa Alvetro; Veronica Giuntini; Lorenzo Franchi Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: B Q Souki; P L C Vilefort; D D Oliveira; I Andrade; A C Ruellas; M S Yatabe; T Nguyen; L Franchi; J A McNamara; L H S Cevidanes Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Karine Sayure Okano; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; Paula Loureiro Cheib; Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; Marília Yatabe; Tung Nguyen; Lorenzo Franchi; James A McNamara; Bernardo Quiroga Souki Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Paula Loureiro Cheib; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes; Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; Lorenzo Franchi; Wagner Fernando Moyses Braga; Dauro Oliveira; Bernardo Quiroga Souki Journal: Turk J Orthod Date: 2016-06-01
Authors: Alexandre Moro; Suellen W Borges; Paula Porto Spada; Nathaly D Morais; Gisele Maria Correr; Cauby M Chaves; Lucia H S Cevidanes Journal: Dental Press J Orthod Date: 2018 Mar-Apr