Objectives: To compare three-dimensional (3D) skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment in growing patients.
Setting And Sample Population: A sample of 35 adolescents with cone-beam computed tomography scans obtained prior to Herbst and Pendulum treatment (T1) and immediately after fixed appliance treatment (T2).
Materials And Methods: Patients with Class II malocclusion was assessed retrospectively and divided into two treatment groups: Herbst group (n = 17, age: 12.0 ± 1.6 years) and Pendulum group (n = 18, age: 12.1 ± 1.5 years), with a mean treatment duration of 2.8 ± 0.8 years and 2.5 ± 0.7 years, respectively. Reconstructions of the maxillomandibular and dentoalveolar regions and data in 3D were obtained relative to cranial base, maxillary and mandibular regional superimpositions. Treatment outcomes (T2-T1) were compared between both groups using t tests for independent samples (P<.05).
Results: Significant increase in mandibular length was observed in the Herbst group (7.3 ± 3.5 mm) relative to the Pendulum group (4.6 ± 4.5 mm). Inferior and anterior displacements of Pogonion were 2.2 mm and 1.6 mm greater in the Herbst group, respectively. The mesial displacement of the lower first molars was significantly greater in the Herbst group (1.9 mm). The upper first molars had contrasting results in sagittal displacement, with 0.6 ± 1.7 mm of distal displacement with the Pendulum and 1.4 ± 2.1 mm of mesial displacement with the Herbst. Lower incisor projection and proclination were similar between groups.
Conclusions: The Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by comprehensive orthodontic treatment effectively corrected Class II malocclusion in growing patients, but with differing skeletal and dentoalveolar effects.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310571 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12345 | DOI Listing |
Orthod Craniofac Res
February 2020
Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Objectives: To compare three-dimensional (3D) skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment in growing patients.
Setting And Sample Population: A sample of 35 adolescents with cone-beam computed tomography scans obtained prior to Herbst and Pendulum treatment (T1) and immediately after fixed appliance treatment (T2).
Materials And Methods: Patients with Class II malocclusion was assessed retrospectively and divided into two treatment groups: Herbst group (n = 17, age: 12.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
February 2003
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078, USA.
Several methods of Class II treatment that do not rely on significant patient compliance have become popular during the last decade, including several versions of the Herbst appliance and the pendulum or Pendex molar-distalization appliances. Yet, these 2 general approaches theoretically have opposite treatment effects, one presumably enhancing mandibular growth, and the other moving the maxillary teeth posteriorly. This study examined the treatment effects produced by 2 types of the Herbst appliance (acrylic splint and stainless-steel crown) followed by fixed appliances, and the pendulum appliance followed by fixed appliances.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSemin Orthod
March 1998
Department of Growth and Development, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
This article presents an advanced and efficient noncompliance method of therapy referred to as tandem treatment. Tandem treatment was devised to harness the predictable orthodontic and orthopedic responses elicited by two proven fixed Class II correction devices, the pendulum and Herbst appliances. Tandem treatment involves two separate actions to resolve certain types of Class II malocclusions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!