File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Changes in the upper airway, hyoid bone and craniofacial morphology between patients treated with headgear activator and Herbst appliance: A retrospective study on lateral cephalometry

TitleChanges in the upper airway, hyoid bone and craniofacial morphology between patients treated with headgear activator and Herbst appliance: A retrospective study on lateral cephalometry
Authors
KeywordsAirway
Cephalometrics
Class II
Functional appliances
Hyoid bone
Issue Date2021
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1601-6335&site=1
Citation
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 2021, v. 24 n. 3, p. 360-369 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: The present study compared the treatment changes in the upper airway, hyoid bone position and craniofacial morphology between two groups of children with skeletal class II malocclusion treated with the headgear activator (HGA) and Herbst appliance (Herbst). Setting and sample population: Orthodontic population from the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Hong Kong. Methods: Thirty-four skeletal class II patients treated with the HGA (17 patients, mean age 10.6 ± 1.5 years) and the Herbst (17 patients, mean age 11.0 ± 1.4 years) were matched for sex, age, overjet, skeletal class and mandibular divergence. The patients received lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) at the beginning of treatment (T1), after treatment (T2) and at follow-up (T3). In the HGA group, patients underwent LCRs 7 months before the beginning of treatment (T0), which were used as growth reference for intra-group comparison. Paired Student's t tests were used for intra- and inter-group comparisons (α = .05). Results: Treatment changes (T2-T1) did not differ significantly between the groups. However, at follow-up (T3-T1) the Herbst group showed a smaller increase than the HGA group in the vertical position of the hyoid bone relative to the Frankfort plane (P = .013) and mandibular plane (P = .013). Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the upper airway, hyoid bone position and craniofacial morphology between the groups at the end of treatment. However, the Herbst may provide better long-term control of the vertical position of the hyoid bone than the HGA in children with skeletal class II malocclusion.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/306661
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 2.563
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.664
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGu, M-
dc.contributor.authorSavoldi, F-
dc.contributor.authorChan, EYL-
dc.contributor.authorTse, CSK-
dc.contributor.authorLau, MTW-
dc.contributor.authorWey, MC-
dc.contributor.authorHägg, U-
dc.contributor.authorYang, Y-
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-22T07:37:49Z-
dc.date.available2021-10-22T07:37:49Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationOrthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 2021, v. 24 n. 3, p. 360-369-
dc.identifier.issn1601-6335-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/306661-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The present study compared the treatment changes in the upper airway, hyoid bone position and craniofacial morphology between two groups of children with skeletal class II malocclusion treated with the headgear activator (HGA) and Herbst appliance (Herbst). Setting and sample population: Orthodontic population from the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Hong Kong. Methods: Thirty-four skeletal class II patients treated with the HGA (17 patients, mean age 10.6 ± 1.5 years) and the Herbst (17 patients, mean age 11.0 ± 1.4 years) were matched for sex, age, overjet, skeletal class and mandibular divergence. The patients received lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) at the beginning of treatment (T1), after treatment (T2) and at follow-up (T3). In the HGA group, patients underwent LCRs 7 months before the beginning of treatment (T0), which were used as growth reference for intra-group comparison. Paired Student's t tests were used for intra- and inter-group comparisons (α = .05). Results: Treatment changes (T2-T1) did not differ significantly between the groups. However, at follow-up (T3-T1) the Herbst group showed a smaller increase than the HGA group in the vertical position of the hyoid bone relative to the Frankfort plane (P = .013) and mandibular plane (P = .013). Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the upper airway, hyoid bone position and craniofacial morphology between the groups at the end of treatment. However, the Herbst may provide better long-term control of the vertical position of the hyoid bone than the HGA in children with skeletal class II malocclusion.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1601-6335&site=1-
dc.relation.ispartofOrthodontics & Craniofacial Research-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectAirway-
dc.subjectCephalometrics-
dc.subjectClass II-
dc.subjectFunctional appliances-
dc.subjectHyoid bone-
dc.titleChanges in the upper airway, hyoid bone and craniofacial morphology between patients treated with headgear activator and Herbst appliance: A retrospective study on lateral cephalometry-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailGu, M: drgumin@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailSavoldi, F: fsavoldi@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailYang, Y: yangyanq@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityGu, M=rp01892-
dc.identifier.authoritySavoldi, F=rp02902-
dc.identifier.authorityHägg, U=rp00020-
dc.identifier.authorityYang, Y=rp00045-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ocr.12442-
dc.identifier.pmid33217159-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC8411420-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85096910757-
dc.identifier.hkuros328815-
dc.identifier.volume24-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage360-
dc.identifier.epage369-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000594749500001-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats