The use of the Hanks Herbst vs Twin-block in Class II malocclusion: A randomized controlled trial

Pacha, Moaiyad Moussa; Fleming, Padhraig S.; Pandis, N.; Shagmani, Muftah; Johal, Ama

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.06.002

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nach Proffit sind die Grenzen einer rein kieferor-thopädischen Korrektur eher im Profil zu sehen, und weniger in der Verankerung [21,22]. tur kürzer war [23]. Wir sehen den Hauptvorteil in einer vorhersagbaren und mitarbeitsunabhängigen Möglichkeit zur Korrektur einer dentalen Klasse II, insbesondere auch bei Erwachsenen.…”

Section: Kontraindikationenunclassified

“…Als weiterer Nachteil muss die Reparaturanfälligkeit der HA angesehen werden. Studien haben gezeigt, dass mehrere außerplanmäßige Behandlungstermine erforderlich werden können [23,28]. Interessant ist, dass jugendliche Patient*innen die HA nicht schlechter tolerieren als funktionskieferorthopädische Geräte [23], obwohl sie in der Regel als nicht besonders ästhetisch wahrgenommen wird.…”

Section: Nachteileunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mitarbeitsunabhängige Klasse II Therapie mit der Herbstapparatur – Ein Überblick

Schmid,

Hohoff

2024

Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDie Therapie der Angle Klasse II gehört zu den häufigsten kieferorthopädischen Behandlungsaufgaben. Befundabhängig stehen verschiedene Therapieoptionen zur Verfügung, unter anderem eine Behandlung mittels Herbstapparatur, die im permanenten Gebiss - auf oder nach dem Wachstumsgipfel - besonders effektiv ist. Die Kombination mit vollständig individuellen lingualen Multibracketapparaturen kann mögliche Nebenwirkungen des Herbstscharniers reduzieren. Ziel dieses Artikels ist ein Literaturüberblick zum Thema Therapie mittels Herbstapparatur und die Veranschaulichung der Methode anhand von Fallbeispielen.

show abstract

Section: Kontraindikationenunclassified

Section: Nachteileunclassified

Mitarbeitsunabhängige Klasse II Therapie mit der Herbstapparatur – Ein Überblick

Schmid,

Hohoff

2024

Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the Twin Block enhances facial aesthetics in Class II malocclusion through a blend of alterations in both skeletal and dentoalveolar structures [ 13 ]. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that using Herbst for treatment led to a more effective and consistent reduction in overjet compared to the Twin-block [ 14 ]. Baysal and Uysal's research indicated that, in comparison to the Herbst appliance, the Twin Block appliance produces a more significant quantitative change in the soft tissue profile [ 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Twin Block appliance and Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children: a meta-analysis

Xu,

Fang,

Sui

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of applying Herbst and Twin Block appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children. Methods Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China VIP Database (VIP), and Wanfang were thoroughly searched from inception to August 9, 2023. The outcomes included skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as the effect indicator, and the effect size was expressed with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The heterogeneity of each outcome effect size was tested, and the heterogeneity statistic I2 ≥ 50% was analyzed by the random-effect model, otherwise, the fixed-effect model was conducted. Sensitivity analysis was performed. Results A total of 12 studies involving 574 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Herbst appliance had a statistically significant increase in mandibular body length (WMD: 1.44, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.96, P < 0.001) compared with the Twin Block appliance. More increases in angle and distance of L1 to mandibular plane (MP) were found in the Herbst appliance compared with the Twin Block appliance. Significant and greater improvements in molar relationship (WMD: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.29, P = 0.002), posterior facial height (WMD: -1.23, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.38, P = 0.005), convexity angle (WMD: -1.89, 95% CI: -3.12 to -0.66, P = 0.003), and Sella-Nasion plane angle (U1 to SN) (WMD: 3.34, 95% CI: 2.25 to 4.43, P < 0.001) were achieved in the Twin Block appliance. Herbst and Twin Block appliances produced similar effects in the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes including Sella-Nasion-point A (SNA), Sella-Nasion-point B, point A-Nasion-point B (ANB), overjet, and overbite. Conclusion As the findings revealed both Herbst and Twin Block appliances contributed successfully to the correction of Class II malocclusion. Compared with the Twin Block appliance, the Herbst appliance may have more advantages in mandibular bone movement. Twin Block therapy resulted in more improvement in the aesthetics of the face.

show abstract

The twin block appliance in the era of digital orthodontics

Cousley

2024

Seminars in Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of the Hanks Herbst vs Twin-block in Class II malocclusion: A randomized controlled trial

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Mitarbeitsunabhängige Klasse II Therapie mit der Herbstapparatur – Ein Überblick

Mitarbeitsunabhängige Klasse II Therapie mit der Herbstapparatur – Ein Überblick

Comparison of Twin Block appliance and Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children: a meta-analysis

The twin block appliance in the era of digital orthodontics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About