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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Jul 13;13(1):11342.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37394-5.

Treatment effects of Herbst appliance in skeletal Class II cases during pre-pubertal and post-pubertal periods: a cone-beam computed tomographic study

Khaled Farouk  1   2 , Osama Eissa  3 , Ahmed Ghoneima  4   5 , Ashraf El-Bedwehi  6 , Ezzat Abdel-Fattah  6 , Farouk Hussein  6 , Tarek El-Bialy  7
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Treatment effects of Herbst appliance in skeletal Class II cases during pre-pubertal and post-pubertal periods: a cone-beam computed tomographic study

Khaled Farouk et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

In the present study, Thirty-six Class patients II (A condition in which the upper jaw is larger than the lower jaw) were randomly selected and assigned to one of two groups based on their maturation stage: the pre-pubertal group (18 patients, mean age 9.15 ± 1.5 years) and post-pubertal group (18 patients, mean age 16.3 ± 1.0 years). All patients were treated with a metallic splint-supported Herbst IV appliance (An appliance that acts like artificial joint working between the upper and power jaws that keeps the lower jaw in a forward position, thus improving the Class II condition). Pretreatment (T1) and post-Herbst IV treatment (T2) scans were obtained for both groups. Dental and skeletal measurements were made on the scans and statistically analyzed using paired and independent t-tests. The study hypothesis was that; the dentoskeletal changes in Class II malocclusion treatment using Herbst appliance in the Pre-pubertal is more than the Post-pubertal growth stage due to the remaining growth potential for the pre-pubertal patients. The comparison between the two groups revealed statistically significant differences in horizontal skeletal parameters in the lower jaw only, while other readings were similar.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pre-pubertal Class II case; before, during, and after Herbst IV treatment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Post-pubertal Class II case; before, during, and after Herbst IV treatment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
3D view for Herbst treatment; (A) pre-pubertal (B) Post-pubertal.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Frankfort horizontal plane(A), and orbital perpendicular plane (B).
Figure 5
Figure 5
The sagittal relation for point A, point B, upper incisor, and lower incisor to the orbital perpendicular plane.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Horizontal line was placed through the widest width of the condylar head (A), three lines crossing the glenoid fossa at 45°(B), 90°(C), and 135° (D).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Anterosuperior, superior, posterosuperior, and posterior TMJ spaces.
Figure 8
Figure 8
The geometric center of the condylar head as the point of intersection between the greatest anteroposterior and mediolateral diameter of the condylar process.
Figure 9
Figure 9
The lateral distance between the geometric center of the condylar processes to the midsagittal plane.
Figure 10
Figure 10
The angel between the condylar long access of the mandibular condyle and the midsagittal plane.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Phan KL, Bendeus M, Hagg U, Hansen K, Rabie AB. Comparison of the headgear activator and Herbst appliance–effects and post-treatment changes. Eur. J. Orthod. 2006;28(6):594–604. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl052. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: A double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009;135(6):698.e1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Du X, Hagg U, Rabie A. Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step-by-step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of the mandible. Eur. J. Orthod. 2002;24(2):167–174. doi: 10.1093/ejo/24.2.167. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of bass, bionator and twin block appliances. Part I–the hard tissues. Eur. J. Orthod. 1998;20(5):501–516. doi: 10.1093/ejo/20.5.501. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am. J. Orthod. 1979;76(4):423–442. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90227-6. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types