Journal Article

Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step‐by‐step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of the mandible

Xi Du, Urban Hägg and A. Bakr M. Rabie

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 24, issue 2, pages 167-174
Published in print April 2002 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online April 2002 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.2.167
Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step‐by‐step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of the mandible

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

The aims of this study were to compare dental and skeletal treatment changes in Class II division 1 malocclusions with two modes of maxillary control and two modes of bite‐jumping. The subjects comprised Chinese children with severe Class II division 1 malocclusions, i.e. 21 consecutive subjects (13.4 ± 1.4 years) treated with a headgear Herbst appliance and step‐by‐step advancement (HHSSA) of the mandible, and 24 consecutive subjects (13.2 ± 1.4 years) treated with a ‘conventional’ Herbst appliance with maximal jumping (HMJ) of the mandible. Lateral cephalograms obtained at the start and end of treatment were analysed.

The results showed that the improvement of the sagittal jaw relationship was significantly larger (2.9 mm; P < 0.001) in the HHSSA group than in the HMJ group due to the increased effect on the maxilla (−1.5 mm, P < 0.001) and the mandible (+1.4 mm, NS). There was no significant difference in the change in lower anterior face height, being 2.7 and 3.1 mm, respectively. The mandibular plane angle decreased significantly in the HHSSA group (−0.7 degrees; P < 0.05) and increased insignificantly in the HMJ group (0.4 degrees, NS), the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.01). The maxillary molars moved significantly more distally (1.1 mm, P < 0.05) and were intruded in the HHSSA group (−1.0 mm, P < 0.001) compared with a small extrusion in the HMJ group (+0.3 mm, NS), the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the effect on the mandibular teeth. Treatment with HHSSA seems to result in a greater effect on the sagittal jaw relationship, improved vertical control and more maxillary molar movement. Mandibular anchorage loss was not reduced with step‐by‐step advancement of the mandible.

Journal Article.  0 words. 

Subjects: Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.