Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Objective

The objective of the study is to compare skeletal and dental changes in class II patients treated with fixed functional appliances (FFA) that pursue different biomechanical concepts: (1) FMA (Functional Mandibular Advancer) from first maxillary molar to first mandibular molar through inclined planes and (2) Herbst appliance from first maxillary molar to lower first bicuspid through a rod-and-tube mechanism.

Materials and methods

Forty-two equally distributed patients were treated with FMA (21) and Herbst appliance (21), following a single-step advancement protocol. Lateral cephalograms were available before treatment and immediately after removal of the FFA. The lateral cephalograms were analyzed with customized linear measurements. The actual therapeutic effect was then calculated through comparison with data from a growth survey. Additionally, the ratio of skeletal and dental contributions to molar and overjet correction for both FFA was calculated. Data was analyzed by means of one-sample Student’s t tests and independent Student’s t tests. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Although differences between FMA and Herbst appliance were found, intergroup comparisons showed no statistically significant differences. Almost all measurements resulted in comparable changes for both appliances. Statistically significant dental changes occurred with both appliances. Dentoalveolar contribution to the treatment effect was ≥70%, thus always resulting in ≤30% for skeletal alterations.

Conclusion

FMA and Herbst appliance usage results in comparable skeletal and dental treatment effects despite different biomechanical approaches.

Clinical relevance

Treatment leads to overjet and molar relationship correction that is mainly caused by significant dentoalveolar changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moyers RE (1988) Handbook of orthodontics. Year Book Med Publishers, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  2. McSherry PF, Bradley H (2000) Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques. J Orthod 27:219–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pancherz H, Ruf S (2008) The Herbst appliance: research-based clinical management. Quintessence, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pancherz H (2003) History, background, and development of the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 9:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Herbst E (1934) Dreißigjährige Erfahrungen mit dem Retentions-Scharnier. Zahnärztl Rundsch 43:1515–1524

    Google Scholar 

  6. Herbst E (1934) Dreißigjährige Erfahrungen mit dem Retentions-Scharnier. Zahnärztl Rundsch 43:1563–1568

    Google Scholar 

  7. Herbst E (1934) Dreißigjährige Erfahrungen mit dem Retentions-Scharnier. Zahnärztl Rundsch 34:1611–1616

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pancherz H (1979) Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 76:423–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Panigrahi P, Vineeth V (2009) Biomechanical effects of fixed functional appliance on craniofacial structures. Angle Orthod 79:668–675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kinzinger G, Ostheimer J, Förster F, Kwandt PB, Reul H, Diedrich P (2002) Development of a new fixed functional appliance for treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion first report. J Orofac Orthop 63:384–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kinzinger GS, Diedrich PR (2005) Bite jumping with the functional mandibular advancer. J Clin Orthod 39:696–700

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pancherz H (1985) The Herbst appliance—its biologic effects and clinical use. Am J Orthod 87:1–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ruf S, Pancherz H (1999) Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 115:607–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kinzinger G, Kober C, Diedrich P (2007) Topography and morphology of the mandibular condyle during fixed functional orthopedic treatment—a magnetic resonance imaging study. J Orofac Orthop 68:124–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Frye L, Diedrich PR, Kinzinger GS (2009) Class II treatment with fixed functional orthodontic appliances before and after the pubertal growth peak—a cephalometric study to evaluate differential therapeutic effects. J Orofac Orthop 70:511–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruf S, Pancherz H (1998) Long-term TMJ effects of Herbst treatment: a clinical and MRI study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 114:475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ruf S, Pancherz H (1998) Temporomandibular joint growth adaptation in Herbst treatment: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur J Orthod 20:375–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pancherz H, Michailidou C (2004) Temporomandibular joint growth changes in hyperdivergent and hypodivergent Herbst subjects. A long-term roentgenographic cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 126:153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Woodside DG, Metaxas A, Altuna G (1987) The influence of functional appliance therapy on glenoid fossa remodeling. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 92:181–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanden E, Pancherz H, Hansen K (2004) Complications during Herbst appliance treatment. J Clin Orthod 38:130–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kinzinger GS, Savvaidis S, Gross U, Gulden N, Ludwig B, Lisson J (2011) Effects of class II treatment with a banded Herbst appliance on root lengths in the posterior dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 139:465–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kinzinger G, Savvaidis S, Gulden N, Ludwig B, Knosel M, Lisson J (2010) Effects of two different functional appliances on root development of posterior teeth: activator vs. bite-jumping appliance. J Orofac Orthop 71:235–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Purkayastha SK, Rabie AB, Wong R (2008) Treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion in adults: stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Herbst appliance. World J Orthod 9:233–243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Aras I, Pasaoglu A, Olmez S, Unal I, Tuncer AV, Aras A (2016) Comparison of stepwise vs single-step advancement with the functional mandibular advancer in class II division 1 treatment. Angle Orthod 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kinzinger G, Frye L, Diedrich P (2009) Class II treatment in adults: comparing camouflage orthodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthognathic surgery—a cephalometric study to evaluate various therapeutic effects. J Orofac Orthop 70:63–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kinzinger G, Diedrich P (2005) Skeletal effects in class II treatment with the functional mandibular advancer (FMA)? J Orofac Orthop 66:469–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Unal T, Celikoglu M, Candirli C (2015) Evaluation of the effects of skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD using miniplates inserted on mandibular symphysis: a new approach for the treatment of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 85:413–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ruf S, Pancherz H (2006) Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of class II division 1 malocclusions in early and late adulthood. A prospective cephalometric study of consecutively treated subjects. Eur J Orthod 28:352–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bhatia SN, Leighton BC (1993) A manual of facial growth. A computer analysis of longitudinal cephalometric growth data. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  30. IRCP (2001) Radiation and your patient—a guide for medical practitioners. ICRP Supporting Guidance 2. Available at: http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Supporting%20Guidance%202 accessed:2016–15-03. Ann IRCP 31

  31. Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Interscience Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Flores-Mir C, Ayeh A, Goswani A, Charkhandeh S (2007) Skeletal and dental changes in class II division 1 malocclusions treated with splint-type Herbst appliances. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 77:376–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. de Almeida MR, Henriques JF, de Almeida RR, Weber U, McNamara JA Jr (2005) Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 75:540–547

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pancherz H (1997) The effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial adaptations to treatment with the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 3:232–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jakobsone G, Latkauskiene D, McNamara JA Jr (2013) Mechanisms of class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase class II therapy: 1 year follow-up. Prog Orthod 14:2196–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA (2016) Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 38:113–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pancherz H (1982) The mechanism of class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 82:104–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. McNamara JA Jr, Howe RP, Dischinger TG (1990) A comparison of the Herbst and Frankel appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 98:134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wieslander L (1984) Intensive treatment of severe class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 86:1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Burkhardt DR, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T (2003) Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 123:108–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Windmiller EC (1993) The acrylic-splint Herbst appliance: a cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 104:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr (1999) Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 115:429–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, Connolly I, Cook P, Birnie D, Hammond M, Harradine N, Lewis D, McDade C, Mitchell L, Murray A, O'Neill J, Read M, Robinson S, Roberts-Harry D, Sandler J, Shaw I (2003) Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 124:234–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pancherz H, Malmgren O, Hagg U, Omblus J, Hansen K (1989) Class II correction in Herbst and bass therapy. Eur J Orthod 11:17–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pancherz H, Fackel U (1990) The skeletofacial growth pattern pre- and post-dentofacial orthopaedics. A long-term study of class II malocclusions treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 12:209–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Paulsen HU, Karle A, Bakke M, Herskind A (1995) CT-scanning and radiographic analysis of temporomandibular joints and cephalometric analysis in a case of Herbst treatment in late puberty. Eur J Orthod 17:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schweitzer M, Pancherz H (2001) The incisor-lip relationship in Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of class II, division 2 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 71:358–363

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hansen K, Pancherz H, Hagg U (1991) Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 13:471–481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Trivedi S (2014) Finite element analysis: a boon to dentistry. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 4:200–203

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. van Eijden TM (2000) Biomechanics of the mandible. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 11:123–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Korioth TW, Hannam AG (1994) Deformation of the human mandible during simulated tooth clenching. J Dent Res 73:56–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Choi AH, Ben-Nissan B, Conway RC (2005) Three-dimensional modelling and finite element analysis of the human mandible during clenching. Aust Dent J 50:42–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Alvarez-Arenal A, Lasheras FS, Fernández EM, González I (2009) A jaw model for the study of the mandibular flexure taking into account the anisotropy of the bone. Math Comput Model 50:695–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Gupta A, Kohli VS, Hazarey PV, Kharbanda OP, Gunjal A (2009) Stress distribution in the temporomandibular joint after mandibular protraction: a 3-dimensional finite element method study. Part 1. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 135:737–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ashman RB, van Buskirk WC (1987) The elastic properties of a human mandible. Adv Dent Res 1:64–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Giesen EB, Ding M, Dalstra M, van Eijden TM (2001) Mechanical properties of cancellous bone in the human mandibular condyle are anisotropic. J Biomech 34:799–803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chaudhry A, Sidhu MS, Chaudhary G, Grover S, Chaudhry N, Kaushik A (2015) Evaluation of stress changes in the mandible with a fixed functional appliance: a finite element study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 147:226–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Fischman BM (1976) The influence of fixed splints on mandibular flexure. J Prosthet Dent 35:643–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sivaraman K, Chopra A, Venkatesh SB (2016) Clinical importance of median mandibular flexure in oral rehabilitation: a review. J Oral Rehabil 43:215–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Weschler D, Pancherz H (2005) Efficiency of three mandibular anchorage forms in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Angle Orthod 75:23–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Celikoglu M, Unal T, Bayram M, Candirli C (2014) Treatment of a skeletal class II malocclusion using fixed functional appliance with miniplate anchorage. Eur J Dent 8:276–280

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Celikoglu M, Buyuk SK, Ekizer A, Unal T (2016) Treatment effects of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ and Herbst appliances: a retrospective clinical study. Angle Orthod 86:306–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Turkkahraman H, Eliacik SK, Findik Y (2016) Effects of miniplate anchored and conventional Forsus fatigue resistant devices in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 86:1026–1032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Manni A, Mutinelli S, Pasini M, Mazzotta L, Cozzani M (2016) Herbst appliance anchored to miniscrews with 2 types of ligation: effectiveness in skeletal class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 149:871–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Barnett GA, Higgins DW, Major PW, Flores-Mir C (2008) Immediate skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown- or banded type Herbst appliance on class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 78:361–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Saarland University, Homburg/Saar, Germany

    Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger, Jörg Alexander Lisson & Jan Hourfar

  2. Essen, Germany

    Linda Frye

  3. Wuppertal, Germany

    Ulrich Gross

Authors
  1. Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jörg Alexander Lisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda Frye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrich Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan Hourfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jörg Alexander Lisson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

The work received no funding.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Ethical approval for this retrospective study was granted by the Ethics Commission of University of Aachen, Germany, No. 171/08.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kinzinger, G.S.M., Lisson, J.A., Frye, L. et al. A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance. Clin Oral Invest 22, 293–304 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2111-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2111-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation