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
Review
. 2022 Nov 26;11(23):6995.
doi: 10.3390/jcm11236995.

Dental and Skeletal Effects of Herbst Appliance, Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device, and Class II Elastics-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Stefanos Matthaios  1 , Apostolos I Tsolakis  1   2 , Anna-Bettina Haidich  3 , Ioannis Galanis  4 , Ioannis A Tsolakis  1   5
Affiliations
Review

Dental and Skeletal Effects of Herbst Appliance, Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device, and Class II Elastics-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Stefanos Matthaios et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background: Our study aimed to systematically summarize the dentoskeletal effects of Herbst appliance; Forsus fatigue resistance device; and Class II elastics in adolescent Class II malocclusion. Methods: Five databases; unpublished literature; and reference lists were last searched in August 2022. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies of at least 10 Class II growing patients that assessed dentoskeletal effects through cephalometric/CBCT superimpositions were eligible. The included studies quality was assessed with the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was explored with subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: Among nine studies (298 patients); two-to-three studies were included in each meta-analysis. Less post-treatment upper incisor retroclination (<2) and no overbite; overjet; SNA; SNB; and lower incisor inclination differences were found between Herbst/Forsus and Class II elastics. No differences in maxilla; condyle; glenoid fossa; and most mandibular changes were found between Herbst and Class II elastics; except for a greater 1.5 mm increase in mandibular length and right mandibular ramus height (1.6 mm) with Herbst. Conclusions: Herbst and Class II elastics corrected the molar relationship; but Herbst moved the lower molars more mesially. Apart from an additional mandibular length increase; no other dental and anteroposterior skeletal difference was found. Forsus was more effective in molar correction; overjet reduction; and upper incisor control than Class II elastics. Trial registration number OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8TK3R.

Keywords: class II elastics; class II malocclusion; forsus fatigue resistance device; functional appliances; herbst appliance; meta-analysis; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers, and other sources [33].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of the overjet changes using the random effects model [39,41,46].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of the overbite changes using the random effects model [39,46].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of the upper incisor inclination changes using the random effects model [39,41,46].
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of the lower incisor inclination changes using the random effects model [39,41,46].
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of the SNA angle changes using the random effects model [39,46].
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot of the A point anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot of the ANS point anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forest plot of the SNB angle changes using the random effects model [39,46].
Figure 10
Figure 10
Forest plot of the B point anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 11
Figure 11
Forest plot of Pg point anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 12
Figure 12
Forest plot of the right gonial angle changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 13
Figure 13
Forest plot of the left gonial angle changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 14
Figure 14
Forest plot of the right mandibular corpus length changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 15
Figure 15
Forest plot of the left mandibular corpus length changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 16
Figure 16
Forest plot of the left mandibular ramus height changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 17
Figure 17
Forest plot of the right mandibular length changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 18
Figure 18
Forest plot of the left mandibular length changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 19
Figure 19
Forest plot of the right mandibular ramus height changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 20
Figure 20
Forest plot of the right Co point anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 21
Figure 21
Forest plot of the left Co point anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 22
Figure 22
Forest plot of right anterior glenoid fossa anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 23
Figure 23
Forest plot of the left anterior glenoid fossa anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 24
Figure 24
Forest plot of right posterior glenoid fossa anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 25
Figure 25
Forest plot of left posterior glenoid fossa anteroposterior changes using the random effects model [43,44].
Figure 26
Figure 26
Forest plot of the sensitivity analysis on upper incisor inclination changes using the random effects model [39,46].
Figure 27
Figure 27
Forest plot of the sensitivity analysis on lower incisor inclination changes using the random effects model [39,46].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ackerman J.L., Ackerman M.B., Kean M.R. A Philadelphia Fable: How Ideal Occlusion Became the Philosopher’s Stone of Orthodontics. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2007;27:409–410. doi: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0192:APFHIO]2.0.CO;2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Graber L., Vanarsdall R., Vig K., Huang G. Orthodontics Current Principles and Techniques. 6th ed. Elsevier; St. Louis, MO, USA: 2017.
    1. Alhammadi M.S., Halboub E., Fayed M.S., Labib A., El-Saaidi C. Global Distribution of Malocclusion Traits: A Systematic Review. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2018;23:e1–e40. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ingervall B. Prevalence of Dental and Occlusal Anomalies in Swedish Conscripts. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1974;32:83–92. doi: 10.3109/00016357409002537. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brunelle J.A., Bhat M., Lipton J.A. Prevalence and Distribution of Selected Occlusal Characteristics in the US Population, 1988–1991. J. Dent. Res. 1996;75:706–713. doi: 10.1177/002203459607502S10. - DOI - PubMed