Show simple item record

Threeâ dimensional comparison of the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by fixed appliances: A CBCT study

dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Kyle L.
dc.contributor.authorEvangelista, Karine
dc.contributor.authorMuniz, Luciana
dc.contributor.authorRuellas, Antônio Carlos De Oliveira
dc.contributor.authorValladares‐neto, José
dc.contributor.authorMcNamara, James
dc.contributor.authorFranchi, Lorenzo
dc.contributor.authorKim‐berman, Hera
dc.contributor.authorCevidanes, Lucia Helena Soares
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-05T15:04:03Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHS
dc.date.available2020-02-05T15:04:03Z
dc.date.issued2020-02
dc.identifier.citationTaylor, Kyle L.; Evangelista, Karine; Muniz, Luciana; Ruellas, Antônio Carlos De Oliveira ; Valladares‐neto, José ; McNamara, James; Franchi, Lorenzo; Kim‐berman, Hera ; Cevidanes, Lucia Helena Soares (2020). "Threeâ dimensional comparison of the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by fixed appliances: A CBCT study." Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 23(1): 72-81.
dc.identifier.issn1601-6335
dc.identifier.issn1601-6343
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/153549
dc.description.abstractObjectivesTo compare threeâ dimensional (3D) skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment in growing patients.Setting and sample populationA sample of 35 adolescents with coneâ beam computed tomography scans obtained prior to Herbst and Pendulum treatment (T1) and immediately after fixed appliance treatment (T2).Materials and MethodsPatients with Class II malocclusion was assessed retrospectively and divided into two treatment groups: Herbst group (n = 17, age: 12.0 ± 1.6 years) and Pendulum group (n = 18, age: 12.1 ± 1.5 years), with a mean treatment duration of 2.8 ± 0.8 years and 2.5 ± 0.7 years, respectively. Reconstructions of the maxillomandibular and dentoalveolar regions and data in 3D were obtained relative to cranial base, maxillary and mandibular regional superimpositions. Treatment outcomes (T2â T1) were compared between both groups using t tests for independent samples (P<.05).ResultsSignificant increase in mandibular length was observed in the Herbst group (7.3 ± 3.5 mm) relative to the Pendulum group (4.6 ± 4.5 mm). Inferior and anterior displacements of Pogonion were 2.2 mm and 1.6 mm greater in the Herbst group, respectively. The mesial displacement of the lower first molars was significantly greater in the Herbst group (1.9 mm). The upper first molars had contrasting results in sagittal displacement, with 0.6 ± 1.7 mm of distal displacement with the Pendulum and 1.4 ± 2.1 mm of mesial displacement with the Herbst. Lower incisor projection and proclination were similar between groups.ConclusionsThe Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by comprehensive orthodontic treatment effectively corrected Class II malocclusion in growing patients, but with differing skeletal and dentoalveolar effects.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherthreeâ dimensional images
dc.subject.otherconeâ beam computed tomography
dc.subject.otherAngle Class II malocclusion
dc.subject.otherPendulum appliance
dc.subject.otherHerbst appliance
dc.titleThreeâ dimensional comparison of the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by fixed appliances: A CBCT study
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistry
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153549/1/ocr12345.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153549/2/ocr12345_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ocr.12345
dc.identifier.sourceOrthodontics & Craniofacial Research
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRuellas ACdO, Huanca Ghislanzoni LT, Gomes MR, et al. Comparison and reproducibility of 2 regions of reference for maxillary regional registration with coneâ beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 149: 533 â 542.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePancherz H. Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1979; 76: 423 â 442.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBussick TJ, McNamara JA Jr. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes associated with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000; 117: 333 â 343.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHilgers JJ. The pendulum appliance for class II nonâ compliance therapy. J Clin Orthod. 1992; 26: 706 â 714.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNelson B, Hansen K, Hägg U. Class II correction in patients treated with class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118: 142 â 149.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTomblyn T, Rogers M, Andrews L, et al. Cephalometric study of Class II division 1 patients treated with an extendedâ duration, reinforced, banded Herbst appliance followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 150: 818 â 830.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCaprioglio A, Fontana M, Longoni E, Cozzani M. Longâ term evaluation of the molar movements following Pendulum and fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83: 447 â 454.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFuziy A, de Almeida RR, Janson G, Angelieri F, Pinzan A. Sagittal, vertical, and transverse changes consequent to maxillary molar distalization with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006; 130: 502 â 510.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129 ( 5 ): 599.e1 â 599.e12.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRogers K, Campbell PM, Tadlock L, Schneiderman E, Buschang PH. Treatment changes of hypoâ and hyperdivergent class II Herbst patients. Angle Orthod. 2018; 88: 3 â 9.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRabie AB, Zhao Z, Shen G, Hägg EU, Dr O, Robinson W. Osteogenesis in the glenoid fossa in response to mandibular advancement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119: 390 â 400.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a doubleâ blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135 ( 6 ): 698.e1 â 698.e10.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSouki BQ, Vilefort P, Oliveira DD, et al. Threeâ dimensional skeletal mandibular changes associated with Herbst appliance treatment. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017; 20: 111 â 118.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAtresh A, Cevidanes L, Yatabe M, et al. Threeâ dimensional treatment outcomes in class II patients with different vertical facial patterns treated with the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 154 ( 2 ): 238 â 248.e1.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurkhardt DR, McNamara JA Jr, Baccetti T. 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. 2003; 123: 108 â 116.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. The cervical vertebral maturation method: a userâ s guide. Angle Orthod. 2018; 88: 133 â 143.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRuellas A, Tonello C, Gomes LR, et al. Common 3â dimensional coordinate system for assessment of directional changes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016; 149: 645 â 656.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCevidanes L, Styner MA, Proffit WR. Image analysis and superimposition of 3â dimensional coneâ beam computed tomography models. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006; 129: 611 â 618.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDe Oliveira Ruellas AC, Yatabe MS, Souki BQ, et al. 3D mandibular superimposition: comparison of regions of reference for voxelâ based registration. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11: 1 â 13.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePancherz H, Anehusâ Pancherz M. The headgear effect of the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric longâ term study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103: 510 â 520.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWigal TG, Dischinger T, Martin C, Razmus T, Gunel E, Ngan P. Stability of class II treatment with an edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition: Skeletal and dental changes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011; 140: 210 â 223.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarnett GA, Higgins DW, Major PW, Floresâ Mir C. Immediate skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crownâ or banded type Herbst appliance on class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78: 361 â 369.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLai M, McNamara JA Jr. An evaluation of twoâ phase treatment with the Herbst appliance and preadjusted edgewise therapy. Semin Orthod. 1998; 4: 46 â 58.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChiu PP, McNamara JA Jr, Franchi L. A comparison of two intraoral molar distalization appliances: distal jet versus pendulum. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005; 128: 353 â 365.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHansen K, Pancherz H, Hägg U. Longâ term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod. 1991; 13: 471 â 481.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartin J, Pancherz H. Mandibular incisor position in relation to amount of bite jumping during Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment: a radiographicâ cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009; 136: 44 â 51.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOenning AC, Jacobs R, Pauwels R, Straits A, Hedesiu M, Salmon B. Coneâ beam CT in paediatric dentistry: DIMITRA project position statement. Pediatr Radiol. 2018; 48: 308 â 316.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.