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

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to compare skeletal and dental changes in class II patients treated with fixed functional appliances (FFA) that pursue different biomechanical concepts: (1) FMA (Functional Mandibular Advancer) from first maxillary molar to first mandibular molar through inclined planes and (2) Herbst appliance from first maxillary molar to lower first bicuspid through a rod-and-tube mechanism.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two equally distributed patients were treated with FMA (21) and Herbst appliance (21), following a single-step advancement protocol. Lateral cephalograms were available before treatment and immediately after removal of the FFA. The lateral cephalograms were analyzed with customized linear measurements. The actual therapeutic effect was then calculated through comparison with data from a growth survey. Additionally, the ratio of skeletal and dental contributions to molar and overjet correction for both FFA was calculated. Data was analyzed by means of one-sample Student's t tests and independent Student's t tests. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Although differences between FMA and Herbst appliance were found, intergroup comparisons showed no statistically significant differences. Almost all measurements resulted in comparable changes for both appliances. Statistically significant dental changes occurred with both appliances. Dentoalveolar contribution to the treatment effect was ≥70%, thus always resulting in ≤30% for skeletal alterations.
CONCLUSION: FMA and Herbst appliance usage results in comparable skeletal and dental treatment effects despite different biomechanical approaches. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Treatment leads to overjet and molar relationship correction that is mainly caused by significant dentoalveolar changes.