Arjun Atresh1, Lucia H S Cevidanes2, Marilia Yatabe2, Luciana Muniz2, Tung Nguyen3, Brent Larson4, David J Manton1, Paul M Schneider5. 1. Department of Orthodontics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Orthodontics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 3. Department of Orthodontics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 4. Department of Orthodontics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 5. Department of Orthodontics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: pmschn@unimelb.edu.au.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to evaluate, using 3-dimensional superimposition techniques, the skeletal changes in Class II subjects with different vertical facial patterns treated with the Herbst appliance and to compare these skeletal changes to those of Class II controls treated with elastics. METHODS: Sixteen Herbst patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into 2 equal groups based on vertical facial pattern as determined by the Frankfort mandibular plane angle (brachyfacial, ≤22°; mesofacial, 23°-29°) and had cone-beam computed tomographs taken before treatment, 8 weeks after Herbst appliance removal, and after subsequent fixed appliance treatment. Eleven Class II control patients treated with fixed appliances and elastics had cone-beam computed tomographs taken before and after treatment. Three-dimensional models were generated from the cone-beam computed tomography images, registered on the anterior cranial bases, and analyzed using color maps and point-to-point measurements. RESULTS: There were minimal differences in treatment response between the 2 Herbst groups across all skeletal parameters measured. The Herbst subjects showed a greater inferior displacement of anterior nasal spine compared with the Class II controls (Herbst brachyfacial, -1.44 mm; Herbst mesofacial, -1.95 mm) with other maxillary changes being clinically insignificant. The Herbst subjects showed greater inferior displacement of B-point compared with the Class II controls (Herbst brachyfacial, -2.59 mm; Herbst mesofacial, -2.75 mm). There were no statistically significant differences in mean linear mandibular measurements. All groups showed a trend toward posterior displacement of the condyles and glenoid fossae from the start to the end of treatment, with no significant differences across the 3 groups. There were minimal differences in the changes in gonial angle and Frankfort mandibular plane angle across all groups. CONCLUSION: Approximately 2 years after Herbst treatment, the Herbst subjects with different vertical facial patterns showed similar patterns of skeletal change compared with the Class II controls treated with elastics.
INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to evaluate, using 3-dimensional superimposition techniques, the skeletal changes in Class II subjects with different vertical facial patterns treated with the Herbst appliance and to compare these skeletal changes to those of Class II controls treated with elastics. METHODS: Sixteen Herbst patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into 2 equal groups based on vertical facial pattern as determined by the Frankfort mandibular plane angle (brachyfacial, ≤22°; mesofacial, 23°-29°) and had cone-beam computed tomographs taken before treatment, 8 weeks after Herbst appliance removal, and after subsequent fixed appliance treatment. Eleven Class II control patients treated with fixed appliances and elastics had cone-beam computed tomographs taken before and after treatment. Three-dimensional models were generated from the cone-beam computed tomography images, registered on the anterior cranial bases, and analyzed using color maps and point-to-point measurements. RESULTS: There were minimal differences in treatment response between the 2 Herbst groups across all skeletal parameters measured. The Herbst subjects showed a greater inferior displacement of anterior nasal spine compared with the Class II controls (Herbst brachyfacial, -1.44 mm; Herbst mesofacial, -1.95 mm) with other maxillary changes being clinically insignificant. The Herbst subjects showed greater inferior displacement of B-point compared with the Class II controls (Herbst brachyfacial, -2.59 mm; Herbst mesofacial, -2.75 mm). There were no statistically significant differences in mean linear mandibular measurements. All groups showed a trend toward posterior displacement of the condyles and glenoid fossae from the start to the end of treatment, with no significant differences across the 3 groups. There were minimal differences in the changes in gonial angle and Frankfort mandibular plane angle across all groups. CONCLUSION: Approximately 2 years after Herbst treatment, the Herbst subjects with different vertical facial patterns showed similar patterns of skeletal change compared with the Class II controls treated with elastics.
Authors: Danielle R Periago; William C Scarfe; Mazyar Moshiri; James P Scheetz; Anibal M Silveira; Allan G Farman Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Robert Y Wei; Arjun Atresh; Antonio Ruellas; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Tung Nguyen; Brent E Larson; Jonathan E Mangum; David J Manton; Paul M Schneider Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Kyle L Taylor; Karine Evangelista; Luciana Muniz; Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; José Valladares-Neto; James McNamara; Lorenzo Franchi; Hera Kim-Berman; Lucia Helena Soares Cevidanes Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Maria Rita Giuca; Marco Pasini; Sara Drago; Leonardo Del Corso; Arianna Vanni; Elisabetta Carli; Antonio Manni Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2020-01-11
Authors: Yi Fan; Paul Schneider; Harold Matthews; Wilbur Eugene Roberts; Tianmin Xu; Robert Wei; Peter Claes; John Clement; Nicky Kilpatrick; Anthony Penington Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 2.757