Class II treatment by extraction of maxillary first molars or Herbst appliance: dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects in comparison

Booij, Johan Willem; Goeke, Juliane; Bronkhorst, Ewald Maria; Katsaros, Christos; Ruf, Sabine (2013). Class II treatment by extraction of maxillary first molars or Herbst appliance: dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects in comparison. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie, 74(1), pp. 52-63. Springer 10.1007/s00056-012-0112-1

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

AIM To compare dentoskeletal and soft tissue treatment effects of two alternative Class II division 1 treatment modalities (maxillary first permanent molar extraction versus Herbst appliance). METHODS One-hundred-fifty-four Class II division 1 patients that had either been treated with extractions of the upper first molars and a lightwire multibracket (MB) appliance (n = 79; 38 girls, 41 boys) or non-extraction by means of a Herbst-MB appliance (n = 75; 35 girls, 40 boys). The groups were matched on age and sex. The average age at the start of treatment was 12.7 years for the extraction and for 13.0 years for the Herbst group. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were retrospectively analyzed using a standard cephalometric analysis and the sagittal occlusal analysis according to Pancherz. RESULTS The SNA decrease was 1.10° (p = 0.001) more pronounced in the extraction group, the SNB angle increased 1.49° more in the Herbst group (p = 0.000). In the extraction group, a decrease in SNB angle (0.49°) was observed. The soft tissue profile convexity (N-Sn-Pog) decreased in both groups, which was 0.78° more (n. s.) pronounced in the Herbst group. The nasolabial angle increased significantly more (+ 2.33°, p = 0.025) in the extraction group. The mechanism of overjet correction in the extraction group was predominantly dental (65% dental and 35% skeletal changes), while in the Herbst group it was predominantly skeletal (58% skeletal and 42% dental changes) in origin. CONCLUSION Both treatment methods were successful and led to a correction of the Class II division 1 malocclusion. Whereas for upper first molar extraction treatment more dental and maxillary effects can be expected, in case of Herbst treatment skeletal and mandibular effects prevail.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Orthodontics

UniBE Contributor:

Katsaros, Christos and Ruf, Sabine

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

1434-5293, 1615-6714

Publisher:

Springer

Language:

English

Submitter:

Eveline Carmen Schuler

Date Deposited:

14 Feb 2014 15:25

Last Modified:

25 Jan 2017 12:15

Publisher DOI:

10.1007/s00056-012-0112-1

PubMed ID:

23299649

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/39986

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback