File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: What does headgear add to Herbst treatment and to retention?

TitleWhat does headgear add to Herbst treatment and to retention?
Authors
Issue Date2003
PublisherWB Saunders Co. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ysodo
Citation
Seminars In Orthodontics, 2003, v. 9 n. 1, p. 57-66 How to Cite?
AbstractThis study was designed to investigate the effect of adding headgear to the Herbst appliance and the retainer, respectively. The material comprised 2 samples of consecutively treated patients with skeletal Class II malocclusions. The first sample of 22 patients (mean age, 13.2 years) was treated with high-pull headgear Herbst appliance followed by a headgear activator as a retainer, and the second sample of 14 patients (mean age, 12.9 years) was treated with Herbst appliance and an Andresen activator for retention. In both groups, the Herbst appliance was a cast silver splint type with step-by-step advancement of the mandible. Before treatment, there were no significant differences in dentofacial morphology between the groups. Changes during treatment and retention were assessed from lateral cephalograms obtained at start of treatment, after 6 months of treatment, end of treatment (12 months of treatment), and after 6 months of retention. The results showed that the maxillary forward growth was more restrained after 6 months and increasingly more during the 12 months of treatment in the headgear Herbst group, resulting in greater improvement of the jaw-base relationship in that group. The maxilla tilted in the Herbst group but not in the headgear Herbst group. During retention, the positive skeletal changes achieved during active treatment were maintained with the headgear activator, whereas with the Andresen activator there was partial relapse. The overjet correction was similar in both groups, being 9.0 and 9.7 mm, respectively. With the combined headgear concept, 70% of the overjet correction was caused by skeletal changes, whereas in the other group the skeletal contribution was less than 30%. In conclusion, adding headgear to the Herbst resulted in increased orthopedic effect on the maxilla and larger improvement of the jaw-base relationship. The choice of the retention device was critical; the headgear activator maintained the treatment results, whereas the Andresen activator had a negative effect and should not be used as a retainer after Herbst treatment.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154228
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.346
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.252
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHägg, Uen_HK
dc.contributor.authorDu, Xen_HK
dc.contributor.authorRabie, ABMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBendeus, Men_HK
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:24:04Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:24:04Z-
dc.date.issued2003en_HK
dc.identifier.citationSeminars In Orthodontics, 2003, v. 9 n. 1, p. 57-66en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1073-8746en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154228-
dc.description.abstractThis study was designed to investigate the effect of adding headgear to the Herbst appliance and the retainer, respectively. The material comprised 2 samples of consecutively treated patients with skeletal Class II malocclusions. The first sample of 22 patients (mean age, 13.2 years) was treated with high-pull headgear Herbst appliance followed by a headgear activator as a retainer, and the second sample of 14 patients (mean age, 12.9 years) was treated with Herbst appliance and an Andresen activator for retention. In both groups, the Herbst appliance was a cast silver splint type with step-by-step advancement of the mandible. Before treatment, there were no significant differences in dentofacial morphology between the groups. Changes during treatment and retention were assessed from lateral cephalograms obtained at start of treatment, after 6 months of treatment, end of treatment (12 months of treatment), and after 6 months of retention. The results showed that the maxillary forward growth was more restrained after 6 months and increasingly more during the 12 months of treatment in the headgear Herbst group, resulting in greater improvement of the jaw-base relationship in that group. The maxilla tilted in the Herbst group but not in the headgear Herbst group. During retention, the positive skeletal changes achieved during active treatment were maintained with the headgear activator, whereas with the Andresen activator there was partial relapse. The overjet correction was similar in both groups, being 9.0 and 9.7 mm, respectively. With the combined headgear concept, 70% of the overjet correction was caused by skeletal changes, whereas in the other group the skeletal contribution was less than 30%. In conclusion, adding headgear to the Herbst resulted in increased orthopedic effect on the maxilla and larger improvement of the jaw-base relationship. The choice of the retention device was critical; the headgear activator maintained the treatment results, whereas the Andresen activator had a negative effect and should not be used as a retainer after Herbst treatment.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWB Saunders Co. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ysodoen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofSeminars in Orthodonticsen_HK
dc.titleWhat does headgear add to Herbst treatment and to retention?en_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailHägg, U: euohagg@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailRabie, ABM: rabie@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityHägg, U=rp00020en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityRabie, ABM=rp00029en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1053/sodo.2003.34025-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0037353922en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros95050-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0037353922&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume9en_HK
dc.identifier.issue1en_HK
dc.identifier.spage57en_HK
dc.identifier.epage66en_HK
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHägg, U=7006790279en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDu, X=7402551294en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridRabie, ABM=7007172734en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBendeus, M=6506522941en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats