Evaluation of Facial Aesthetic Changes in Growing Class II Patients Treated with Herbst or Elastodontics: A Retrospective Study
- PMID: 39727468
- PMCID: PMC11675019
- DOI: 10.3390/dj12120411
Evaluation of Facial Aesthetic Changes in Growing Class II Patients Treated with Herbst or Elastodontics: A Retrospective Study
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the facial profile changes of patients treated for class II skeletal malocclusions with an elastodontic appliance compared to those treated with the Herbst appliance and a control group. Methods: Forty class II patients were treated using an elastodontic appliance (Group EA) and were compared to 40 patients treated with the Herbst appliance (Group H) and to 40 untreated class II children (Group C). Aesthetic profile variables were analysed using Arnett's analysis. Cephalograms were compared pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test or paired-samples t-test was used for pairwise comparison of cephalometric measurements taken at T0 and T1. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were performed to assess differences between the groups. Results: In the elastodontic group, the inclination of the upper incisors increased by 4.05°. In addition, the Pog-TVL and B-TVL distances decreased by 2.84 mm and 1.79 mm, respectively. In patients treated with an elastodontic appliance, the inclination of the upper incisors increased by 4.05°. In addition, the Pog-TVL and B-TVL distances decreased by 2.84 mm and 1.79 mm, respectively. In patients treated with the Herbst appliance, the inclination of the lower incisors increased by 6.11°. Furthermore, the treatment resulted in reductions in the Pog-TVL distance (2.58 mm), the B-TVL distance (2.26 mm), and the LL-TVL distance (2.31 mm). Conclusions: The profile changes achieved by both devices are favourable for correcting class II skeletal malocclusion.
Keywords: Herbst; elastodontics; facial aesthetic; profile changes.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with a Herbst Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Skeletal Malocclusion in Growing Patients: A Retrospective Study.Dent J (Basel). 2024 Aug 13;12(8):254. doi: 10.3390/dj12080254. Dent J (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39195098 Free PMC article.
-
Treatment effects of the edgewise Herbst appliance: a cephalometric and tomographic investigation.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Nov;130(5):582-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.01.030. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006. PMID: 17110255
-
[Dentaoalveolar changes in young adult patients with class II/1 malocclusion treated with the herbst appliance and an activator].Vojnosanit Pregl. 2010 Feb;67(2):170-5. doi: 10.2298/vsp1002170n. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2010. PMID: 20337101 Serbian.
-
Comparison of Twin Block appliance and Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children: a meta-analysis.BMC Oral Health. 2024 Feb 26;24(1):278. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04027-w. BMC Oral Health. 2024. PMID: 38409017 Free PMC article.
-
Dental and Skeletal Effects of Herbst Appliance, Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device, and Class II Elastics-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.J Clin Med. 2022 Nov 26;11(23):6995. doi: 10.3390/jcm11236995. J Clin Med. 2022. PMID: 36498570 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Dimensional stability of pet-g clear aligners with different thickness through cyclic compressive load tests: An in vitro study.J Clin Exp Dent. 2025 Jul 1;17(7):e779-e786. doi: 10.4317/jced.62842. eCollection 2025 Jul. J Clin Exp Dent. 2025. PMID: 40823117 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Angle E.H. Classification of malocclusion. Dent. Cosmos. 1899;41:350–357.
-
- McNamara J.A., Jr. Components of class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981;51:177–202. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources