Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Jan;22(1):293-304.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2111-5. Epub 2017 Apr 1.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Biomechanics; Cephalometrics; FMA; Herbst appliance; Treatment effects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. J Orofac Orthop. 2009 Nov;70(6):511-27 - PubMed
    1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Nov;114(5):475-83 - PubMed
    1. Eur J Dent. 2014 Apr;8(2):276-80 - PubMed
    1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jun;135(6):737-48 - PubMed
    1. J Orofac Orthop. 2005 Nov;66(6):469-90 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources