The Angle orthodontist · 2017
Treatment changes of hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II Herbst patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rogers Kim, Campbell Phillip M, Tadlock Larry, Schneiderman Emet, Buschang Peter H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative effects of Herbst appliance therapy in hypo- and hyperdivergent patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treated group included 45 growing Class II, division 1, patients treated with stainless steel crown Herbst appliances, followed by fixed edgewise appliances. The untreated control group consisted of 45 Class II, division 1, subjects, matched to the treated sample based on Angle classification, age, sex, and pretreatment mandibular plane angle (MPA). Subjects were categorized as hypo- or hyperdivergent based on their MPAs. Pre- and posttreatment cephalograms were traced and superimposed on cranial base and mandibular structures.
RESULTS: The primary effect of the Herbst in terms of maxillomandibular correction was in the maxilla. It significantly restricted maxillary growth, producing a "headgear effect." Mandibular treatment changes depended on divergence. Hyperdivergent patients experienced a deleterious backward true mandibular rotation with Herbst treatment. Hypodivergent patients, as well as untreated hypo- and hyperdivergent controls, underwent forward true mandibular rotation. However, hypodivergent chins did not advance any more than expected for untreated hypodivergent Class II patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Hypo- and hyperdivergent patients benefit from the Herbst's headgear effect. While the mandibular growth of hypodivergent patients overcomes the negative rotational effects, hyperdivergent patients undergo a deleterious backward mandibular rotation and increases in facial height.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treated group included 45 growing Class II, division 1, patients treated with stainless steel crown Herbst appliances, followed by fixed edgewise appliances. The untreated control group consisted of 45 Class II, division 1, subjects, matched to the treated sample based on Angle classification, age, sex, and pretreatment mandibular plane angle (MPA). Subjects were categorized as hypo- or hyperdivergent based on their MPAs. Pre- and posttreatment cephalograms were traced and superimposed on cranial base and mandibular structures.
RESULTS: The primary effect of the Herbst in terms of maxillomandibular correction was in the maxilla. It significantly restricted maxillary growth, producing a "headgear effect." Mandibular treatment changes depended on divergence. Hyperdivergent patients experienced a deleterious backward true mandibular rotation with Herbst treatment. Hypodivergent patients, as well as untreated hypo- and hyperdivergent controls, underwent forward true mandibular rotation. However, hypodivergent chins did not advance any more than expected for untreated hypodivergent Class II patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Hypo- and hyperdivergent patients benefit from the Herbst's headgear effect. While the mandibular growth of hypodivergent patients overcomes the negative rotational effects, hyperdivergent patients undergo a deleterious backward mandibular rotation and increases in facial height.