Skip to main content
Log in

Treatment of Class II, division 2 in the late growth period

Die Deckbißbehandlung in der späten Wachstumsphase (DP3U-Stadium)

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The “Deckbiss” with skeletal Class II jaw relationship sometimes presents a considerable therapeutic problem, particularly in the late growth period (DP3U), as regards the coordination of dental and skeletal treatment objectives. An effective treatment approach was demonstrated: a modified Herbst appliance used simultaneously with fixed appliances in the maxilla. The sample comprised 12 male (14.0±0.9 years old) and 10 female (12.3±0.4 years old) patients. Correction of the distal occlusion was achieved in all patients by means of the Herbst appliance, which was removed after an average time period of 6.4±0.2 months. In the mandible the multibracket appliances were then immediately inserted, and Class II elastics were used for retention. Maximum anchorage was required in the maxilla as well as in the mandible. Complete diagnostic records were made at the begnning of the treatment as well as 6 and 12 months later, in order to document skeletal and dental changes.

A dental and skeletal Class I relationship was achieved in all cases. A significant improvement was recorded in the vertical jaw base relationship; this was still stable after a period of 12 months. In the dental area in particular, a so-called high-pull headgear effect (intrusion and distalization 16, 26) and intrusion of teeth 34, 44 were registered. Only a minor protrusion of the mandibular incisors was observed. Reinforcement of the bands reduced the failure rate significantly.

The Herbst appliance does not represent a standard treatment for Class II. Its indication range is limited.

Zusammenfassung

Der Deckbiß mit distal-basaler Kieferrelation stellt insbesondere in der späten Wachstumsphase (DP3U-Stadium) zuweilen ein erhebliches therapeutisches Problem in der zeitlichen Koordination dentaler und basaler Behandlungsaufgaben dar. Es wurde gezeigt, wie mit einem modifizierten Herbst-Scharnier und gleichzeitiger Multibandapparatur im Oberkiefer eine effektive Behandlung erfolgen kann.

Die Untersuchungsgruppe bestand aus zwölf männlichen (14±0,9 Jahre alt) und zehn weiblichen (12,3±0,4 Jahre alt) Probanden. Die Bißlagekorrektur erfolgte bei allen Patienten mit dem Herbst-Scharnier, das nach durchschnittlich 6,4±0,2 Monaten entfernt wurde. Nach Entfernung des Scharniers wurde sofort die Multibandapparatur im Unterkiefer ergänzt. Zur Retention wurden Klasse-II-Elastics verwendet. Eine maximale Verankerung war im Ober- und Unterkiefer notwendig. Zur Darstellung der skelettalen und dentalen Veränderungen wurden komplette diagnostische Unterlagen zu Beginn, nach sechs und zwölf Monaten Behandlung erstellt.

In allen Fällen konnte eine dentale und skelettale Klasse-I-Relation erzielt werden. Es kam zu einer signifikanten Verbesserung der vertikalen Kieferbasenrelation, die auch nach zwölf Monaten noch stabil blieb. Im dentalen Bereich waren insbesondere ein sogenannter “High-pull-headgear”-Effekt (Intrusion und Distalisierung 16, 26) und eine Intrusion der Zähne 34, 44 festzustellen. Es war nur eine geringe Protrusion der unteren Front zu beobachten. Durch eine spezielle Verstärkung der Bänder konnte eine entscheidende Reduzierung der Reparaturanfälligkeit erzielt werden.

Das Herbst-Scharnier ist kein Standardgerät zur Behandlung der Klasse II. Sein Indikationsbereich ist begrenzt.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eicke C, Wieslander L. Soft-tissue profile changes through therapy with the Herbst hinge appliance. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1990;100:149–53.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hansen K. Post-treatment effects of the Herbst appliance. A radiographic, clinical and biometric investigation. Swed Dent J 1992;88:Suppl:1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hansen K, Iemamnueisuk P, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance on the dental arches and arch relationships: a biometric study. Br J Orthod 1995;22:123–34.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hansen K, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment in relation to normal growth development: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:285–95.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hansen K, Pancherz H, Hagg U. Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1991;13:471–81.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jasper JJ, McNamara JA Jr. The correction of interarch malocclusions using a fixed force module. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;108:641–50.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ömblus J, Malmgren O, Pancherz H, et al. Long-term effects of Class II correction in Herbst and Bass therapy. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:185–93.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pancherz H. The effect of continuous bite jumping on the dentofacial complex: a follow-up study after Herbst appliance treatment of Class II malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 1981;3:49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1982;82:104–13.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance-Its biologic effects and clinical use. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1985;87:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pancherz H. The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991;100:200–33.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. The headgear effect of the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric long-term study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993;103:510–20.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:275–86.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pancherz H, Fackel U. The skeletofacial growth pattern pre- and post-dentofacial or orofacial orthopaedics. A long-term study of Class II malocclusions treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:202–18.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pancherz H, Hansen K. Occlusal changes during and after Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:215–28.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Paulsen H, Karle A, Bakke M, et al. CT-scanning and radiographic analysis of temporomandibular joints and cephalometric analysis in a case of Herbst treatment in late puberty. Eur J Orthod 1995;17:165–75.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ruf S, Pancherz H. The effect of Herbst appliance treatment on the mandibular plane angle: a cephalometric roentgenographic study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;110:225–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sabbagh A. Neue klinische Anwendungsmöglichkeiten der Herbst-Apparatur. ZMK 1997;2:29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wieslander L. Long-term effect of treatment with the headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993;104:319–29.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zreik T. A fixed-removable Herbst-appliance. J Clin Orthod 1994;28:246–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eberhard, H., Hirschfelder, U. Treatment of Class II, division 2 in the late growth period. J Orofac Orthop/Fortschr Kieferorthop 59, 352–361 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01299771

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01299771

Key Words

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation