Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-05-2012 | Original article

Correction of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions using a completely customized lingual appliance and the Herbst device

Authors: J. Vu, H. Pancherz, R. Schwestka-Polly, D. Wiechmann

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 3/2012

Abstract

Aim

The purpose of the present study was to examine the efficiency of correcting a Class II, Division 2 malocclusion using a completely customized lingual appliance.

Materials and methods

In 18 consecutively completed, Class II, Division 2 malocclusion patients, the correction of the upper incisor inclination, deep and distal bite were assessed by means of plaster casts, digital lateral cephalograms, and intraoral photographs taken at the time of debond. Furthermore, two independent calibrated examiners determined the weighted Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR Index) of the initial and end models.

Results

All Class II, Division 2 patients were treated successfully: upper incisor inclination using the palatal plane as a reference improved on average from 95.4° to 111.2°. The deep bite was reduced on average from 3.6 mm to 1.7 mm. Neutral occlusion was achieved in all patients who had undergone correction of an initially pronounced distal occlusion (4.5 mm on average). An 86.2% marked improvement was observed in the weighted PAR index score from an average of 24.7 at the beginning of treatment to 2.9 at the end of treatment, with no patient classified as “worse or no different.”

Conclusion

Class II, Division 2 malocclusions can be efficiently and reliably treated by a combination of a completely customized lingual appliance and the Herbst device.

Baccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F (2009) Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:698 e691–610, discussion 698–699PubMedCrossRef

Bock N, Ruf S (2008) Post-treatment occlusal changes in Class II Division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 30:606–613PubMedCrossRef

Bock NC, Santo C, Pancherz H (2009) Facial profile and lip position changes in adult Class II, Division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst-multibracket appliance. A radiographic cephalometric pilot study. J Orofac Orthop 70:51–62PubMedCrossRef

Canut JA, Arias S (1999) A long-term evaluation of treated Class II Division 2 malocclusions: a retrospective study model analysis. Eur J Orthod 21:377–386PubMedCrossRef

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

Freitas KM de, Freitas MR de, Janson G et al (2006) Retrospective analysis of orthodontic treatment outcomes and its relation to postretention stability. J Appl Oral Sci 14:324–329PubMedCrossRef

DeGuzman L, Bahiraei D, Vig KW et al (1995) The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107:172–176PubMedCrossRef

Demling A, Dittmer MP, Schwestka-Polly R (2009) Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems. Head Face Med 5:27PubMedCrossRef

Devreese H, De Pauw G, Van Maele G et al (2007) Stability of upper incisor inclination changes in Class II Division 2 patients. Eur J Orthod 29:314–320PubMedCrossRef

10.

Drescher D (2000) Fernröntgenanalyse. In: Diedrich P (ed) Kieferorthopädie I, Praxis der Zahnheilkunde Bd 11, Urban & Fischer, München, pp 263–287

11.

Eberhard H, Hirschfelder U (1998) Treatment of Class II, Division 2 in the late growth period. J Orofac Orthop 59:352–361PubMedCrossRef

12.

Fuhrmann R, Berg R (1990) Nachuntersuchung von Patienten mit Deckbiß des Typs Angle-Klasse II, 2. Prakt Kieferorthop 4:11–20

13.

Galletti C, Fauquet-Roure C, Raybaud P (2010) Treatment of Class III malocclusions in adults using the Incognito lingual technique. Int Orthod 8:227–252PubMed

14.

Galletti C, Mujagic M, Simon JS (2007) Orthodontie lingual: positionnement du premier arc dans la zone antérieure. Int Orthod 5:301–326CrossRef

15.

Grauer D, Proffit WR (2011) Accuracy in tooth positioning with a fully customized lingual orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:433–443PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hamdan AM, Rock WP (1999) An appraisal of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index and a suggested new weighting system. Eur J Orthod 21:181–192PubMedCrossRef

17.

Holman JK, Hans MG, Nelson S, Powers MP (1998) An assessment of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. Angle Orthod 68:527–534PubMed

18.

Ileri Z, Basciftci FA, Malkoc S, Ramoglu SI (2011) Comparison of the outcomes of the lower incisor extraction, premolar extraction and non-extraction treatments. Eur J Orthod (epub)

19.

Kim TW, Little RM (1999) Postretention assessment of deep overbite correction in Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 69:175–186PubMed

20.

Kinzel J, Aberschek P, Mischak I, Droschl H (2002) Study of the extent of torque, protrusion and intrusion of the incisors in the context of Class II, division 2 treatment in adults. J Orofac Orthop 63:283–299PubMedCrossRef

21.

Lagerström L, Fornell AC, Stenvik A (2011) Outcome of a scheme for specialist orthodontic care, a follow-up study in 31-year-olds. Swed Dent J 35:41–47PubMed

22.

Locatelli R, Bednar J, Dietz VS, Gianelly AA (1992) Molar distalization with superelastic NiTi wire. J Clin Orthod 26:277–279PubMed

23.

Lux CJ, Raeth O, Burden D et al (2004) Sagittal and vertical growth of the jaws in Class II, Division 1 and Class II, Division 2 malocclusions during prepubertal and pubertal development. J Orofac Orthop 65:290–311PubMedCrossRef

24.

Mavreas D, Athanasiou AE (2008) Factors affecting the duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 30:386–395PubMedCrossRef

25.

Mujagic M, Cuzin JF, Muller C (2008) La décompensation sur mesure. Apport de l’orthodontie linguale. Inf Dent 5:187–192

26.

Muller C, Simon JS (2007) L’orthodontie moderne. Traitement esthétique. Inf Dent 89:581–585

27.

Obijou C, Pancherz H (1997) Herbst appliance treatment of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:287–291PubMedCrossRef

28.

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

29.

Pancherz H (1991) The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 100:220–233PubMedCrossRef

30.

Pinzan-Vercelino CR, Janson G, Pinzan A et al (2009) Comparative efficiency of Class II malocclusion treatment with the pendulum appliance or two maxillary premolar extractions and edgewise appliances [corrected]. Eur J Orthod 31:333–340PubMedCrossRef

31.

Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M (1992) The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 14:180–187PubMed

32.

Ruf S, Pancherz H (2004) Orthognathic surgery and dentofacial orthopedics in adult Class II Division 1 treatment: mandibular sagittal split osteotomy versus Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:140–152; quiz 254–145PubMedCrossRef

33.

Saelens NA, De Smit AA (1998) Therapeutic changes in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 20:225–236PubMedCrossRef

34.

Schweitzer M, Pancherz H (2001) The incisor-lip relationship in Herbst/multi-bracket appliance treatment of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 71:358–363PubMed

35.

Schwestka-Polly R (2004) Proceedings in orthognathic surgery with condylar positioning. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 36:205–218CrossRef

36.

Tofeldt LN, Johnsson AC, Kjellberg H (2007) Evaluation of orthodontic treatment, retention and relapse in a 5-year follow-up: a comparison of treatment outcome between a specialist and a post-graduate clinic. Swed Dent J 31:121–127PubMed

37.

Bremen J von, Bock N, Ruf S (2009) Is Herbst-multi-bracket appliance treatment more efficient in adolescents than in adults? Angle Orthod 79:173–177CrossRef

38.

Walkow TM, Peck S (2002) Dental arch width in Class II Division 2 deep-bite malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 122:608–613PubMedCrossRef

39.

Wehrbein H, Feifel H, Diedrich P (1999) Palatal implant anchorage reinforcement of posterior teeth: A prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116:678–686PubMedCrossRef

40.

Wiechmann D, Schwestka-Polly R, Hohoff A (2008) Herbst appliance in lingual orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:439–446PubMedCrossRef

41.

Wiechmann D, Schwestka-Polly R, Pancherz H, Hohoff A (2010) Control of mandibular incisors with the combined Herbst and completely customized lingual appliance-a pilot study. Head Face Med 6:3PubMedCrossRef

42.

Wilmes B, Drescher D (2010) Application and effectiveness of the Beneslider: a device to move molars distally. World J Orthod 11:331–340PubMed

43.

Zentner A, Peylo S, Brothag D (2003) Predictive value of morphologic parameters for successful correction of Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123:279–285PubMedCrossRef

Title: Correction of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions using a completely customized lingual appliance and the Herbst device
Authors: J. Vu
H. Pancherz
R. Schwestka-Polly
D. Wiechmann
Publication date: 01-05-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0077-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Correction of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions using a completely customized lingual appliance and the Herbst device

Abstract

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

DGKFO-Seiten

The influence of adhesives and the base structure of metal brackets on shear bond strength

Erratum to: Reaction of facial soft tissues to treatment with a Herbst appliance

Efficacy of different strategies in protecting enamel against demineralization during fixed orthodontic treatment

Time-dependent analysis and representation of force distribution and occlusion contact in the masticatory cycle

Predicting vertical growth of the mandibular ramus via hand–wrist radiographs