A prospective study on the clinical effectiveness of the stainless steel crown Herbst appliance

Latkauskiene, Dalia; Jakobsone, Gundega; McNamara, James A.

doi:10.1016/j.pio.2011.10.001

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present report is the natural extension of the clinical study described above [ 13 ]. This follow-up study was designed to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown Herbst appliance used as a single appliance for a single phase therapy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The sample considered in the present study was derived from a prospective sample of 180 patients described earlier [ 13 ]. All patients were treated by the same operator (D.L.)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…in one private orthodontic practice with a standardized bite-jumping appliance, the stainless steel crown Herbst (cHerbst; Ormco Corporation, 1717 West Collins Avenue, Orange, CA) as the only appliance. The management of the appliance during treatment and follow-up was described in detail in a previous publication [ 13 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A systematic review by Barnett et al [ 12 ] has shown that data on the treatment effects of the crown or banded type of the Herbst appliance is limited. A recent prospective study by Latkauskiene et al [ 13 ] on a sample of 180 consecutive patients showed very good compliance and 100% Class II malocclusion correction with the cHerbst. These patients did not receive any type of retention appliance and were followed for additional 1 year posttreatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mechanisms of Class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase Class II therapy: 1 year follow-up

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe objective of this study is to evaluate the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown Herbst appliance used alone for a single phase of therapy followed by a 1-year observation period.MethodsForty patients (mean age 13.6 ± 1.3 years) with a stable Class I occlusion 1 year following the treatment with the crown Herbst appliance were selected from a prospective sample of 180 consecutively treated Class II patients. No other appliances were used during treatment or during the follow-up period. The dentoskeletal changes were compared with a matched sample of untreated Class II subjects (mean age 13.9 ± 1.6 years). Lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment, after Herbst treatment (1 year), and after 1-year follow-up. Overcorrection was avoided intentionally.ResultsTreatment produced an increase in mandibular length, a decrease in ANB angle, and a restriction in the vertical growth of posterior maxilla. The maxillary molars moved backward and tipped distally. The lower incisors proclined markedly, and the upper incisors became retroclined. During the follow-up period, the changes primarily were dentoalveolar in nature, with marked rebound of the upper molars and lower incisors, resulting in some increases in overbite and overjet.ConclusionsThe occlusal correction of Class II malocclusion observed 1 year after the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase therapy was achieved primary due to the dentoalveolar changes and only limited skeletal change occurred.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The sample considered in the present study was derived from a prospective sample of 180 patients described earlier [ 13 ]. All patients were treated by the same operator (D.L.)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mechanisms of Class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase Class II therapy: 1 year follow-up

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Latkauskiene et al reported a total of 46 Herbst appliance fractures for a sample of 175 subjects (26.3 %) undergoing fixed functional pre-treatment prior to initiation of multi-bracket treatment in some cases [24]. Hägg et al reported a proportion of 14 % of complication free instances for the cast Herbst appliance and 21 % for the band-supported Herbst [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical complications during treatment with a modified Herbst appliance in combination with a lingual appliance

Wiechmann

Vu²,

Schwestka-Polly

et al. 2015

Head Face Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the types and frequencies of clinical complications experienced when using a modified lingual Herbst appliance and to compare these with those associated with conventional Herbst appliances reported in the literature.MethodsTreatment records for 35 consecutive subjects treated during the observation period from October 2013 to August 2014 who received a combination of a lingual appliance and a modified Herbst appliance (WIN, DW LingualSystems) were assessed for complications linked to Herbst treatment phase. Complications were analyzed descriptively, and complication-free intervals were calculated using Kaplan-Meier plots. To enable a comparison with data reported in the literature, the cumulative treatment time for all subjects was divided by the total number of complications.Results71.4 % of Herbst treatments were free from complications (n = 25). Complications were seen on 13 occasions (8 instances of Herbst attachment loosening, 5 L-Pin fractures). Most of these complications could be fixed chair side utilizing simple clinical measures. Considering all complications as identical statistical events, the percentage of treatments free from complications would be 88 % for 100 days, 70 % for 200 days and 56.8 % for 300 days. For severe complications, the averaged complication-free treatment interval was found to be 27.8 months.ConclusionIn terms of clinical sturdiness, and taking into consideration the step-wise mode of activation used here as well as the differences in the design of the various Herbst appliances, the WIN-Herbst appliance was found to be superior to comparable vestibular Herbst appliances, as well as the banded Herbst appliance belonging to the preceding generation of customized lingual systems. Success in treatment of non-compliant Angle Class II correction is considered to have better predictability using the modified anchorage strategy of the WIN-Herbst appliance.

show abstract

American Association of Orthodontists Foundation Craniofacial Growth Legacy Collection in the orthodontic literature—use and trends: A systematic review

Al-Jewair

Stellrecht

Lewandowski

et al. 2018

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prospective study on the clinical effectiveness of the stainless steel crown Herbst appliance

Cited by 10 publications

References 25 publications

Mechanisms of Class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase Class II therapy: 1 year follow-up

Mechanisms of Class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase Class II therapy: 1 year follow-up

Clinical complications during treatment with a modified Herbst appliance in combination with a lingual appliance

American Association of Orthodontists Foundation Craniofacial Growth Legacy Collection in the orthodontic literature—use and trends: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About