Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or Twin-block appliances: A randomized, controlled trial

被引:151
作者
O'Brien, K
Wright, J
Conboy, F
Sanjie, Y
Mandall, N
Chadwick, S
Connolly, I
Cook, P
Birnie, D
Hammond, M
Harradine, N
Lewis, D
McDade, C
Mitchell, L
Murray, A
O'Neill, J
Read, M
Robinson, S
Roberts-Harry, D
Sandler, J
Shaw, I
机构
[1] Chester Royal Infirm, Chester, Cheshire, England
[2] Blackburn Royal Infirm, Chester, Cheshire, England
[3] Craigavon Area Hosp, Portadown, North Ireland
[4] Leeds Dent Inst, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[5] Queen Alexandra Hosp, Portsmouth, Hants, England
[6] Corbett Hosp, Stourbridge, England
[7] Bristol Dent Hosp, Bristol, Avon, England
[8] Bolton Gen Hosp, Bolton, England
[9] St Lukes Hosp, Bradford BD5 0NA, W Yorkshire, England
[10] Derbyshire Royal Infirm, Derby DE1 2QY, England
[11] Gen Hosp Kettering, Kettering, England
[12] Chesterfield Royal Hosp, Chesterfield, England
[13] Sunderland Hosp, Sunderland, Durham, England
[14] Univ Manchester, Orthodont Unit, Dent Hosp, Manchester M15 6FH, Lancs, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00345-7
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Herbst and Twin-block appliances for established Class II Division I malocclusion. The study was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial carried out in orthodontic departments in the United Kingdom. A total of 215 patients (aged 11-14 years) were randomized to receive treatment with either the Herbst or the Twin-block appliance. Treatment with the Herbst appliance resulted in a lower failure-to-complete rate for the functional appliance phase of treatment (12.9%) than did treatment with Twin-block (33.6%). There were no differences in treatment time between appliances, but significantly more appointments (3) were needed for repair of the Herbst appliance than for the Twin-block. There were no differences in skeletal and dental changes between the appliances; however, the final occlusal result and skeletal discrepancy were better for girls than for boys. Because of the high cooperation rates of patients using it, the Herbst appliance could be the appliance of choice for treating adolescents with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. The trade-off for use of the Herbst is more appointments for appliance repair.
引用
收藏
页码:128 / 137
页数:10
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy [J].
Baccetti, T ;
Franchi, L ;
Ratner, L ;
McNamara, JA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2000, 118 (02) :159-170
[2]  
BATON S, 1997, AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC, V112, P282
[3]  
Carstairs V, 1981, Community Med, V3, P4, DOI 10.1007/BF02549432
[4]  
Clark WJ, 1995, Twin-Block Functional Therapy: Applications in Dentofacial Orthopaedics
[5]   Mandibular growth as related to cervical vertebral maturation and body height [J].
Franchi, L ;
Baccetti, T ;
McNamara, JA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2000, 118 (03) :335-340
[6]   Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy [J].
Franchi, L ;
Baccetti, T ;
McNamara, JA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1999, 115 (04) :429-438
[7]   Headgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: A randomized clinical trial [J].
Ghafari, J ;
Shofer, FS ;
Jacobsson-Hunt, U ;
Markowitz, DL ;
Laster, LL .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1998, 113 (01) :51-61
[8]  
Harradine N W, 2000, Clin Orthod Res, V3, P202, DOI 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2000.030406.x
[9]   SKELETAL MATURATION EVALUATION USING CERVICAL-VERTEBRAE [J].
HASSEL, B ;
FARMAN, AG .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1995, 107 (01) :58-66
[10]   A prospective evaluation of bass, bionator and twin block appliances. Part I - the hard tissues [J].
Illing, HM ;
Morris, DO ;
Lee, RT .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 1998, 20 (05) :501-516