Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Orthodontics, University of North Paraná, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Oct;160(4):544-551. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.021. Epub 2021 Jul 15.
The purpose of this research was to compare dentoskeletal changes produced by Herbst and Xbow appliances in late mixed/early permanent dentition patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion to an untreated control group.
The retrospective cohort consisted of 41 patients treated with the Herbst appliance on average for 14 months (mean age of 11.3 years), 41 patients treated with Xbow appliance on average for 14 months (mean age of 11.11 years), and an untreated control sample of 25 patients followed on average for 21 months (mean age of 11.9 years). All patients had Class II Division 1 malocclusion characteristics. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after phase 1 treatment/follow-up. Data were analyzed by an analysis of variance followed by Tukey post-hoc tests.
Although there was a high equivalence among the groups in the pretreatment cephalometric values, 4 variables showed differences (U6-FHp, L6-FHp, LAFH, and PP-U1). When comparing the mean changes (before and after phase 1 treatment/follow-up), incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA), Wits appraisal, L6-FHp, Co-Pog, and PP-U1 measurements showed statistically significant differences. In addition, more relative mesial movement of the mandibular molars (an additional 2.4 mm) and a larger increase in mandibular length (an additional 3.2 mm) was noted for the Herbst group.
Class II correction using Herbst and Xbow occurred in both groups through improvement in the maxillomandibular relationship and labial inclination of the mandibular incisors, as well as a relatively increased mesialization of the mandibular molars. Although both appliances improve occlusal features, the portrayed changes were not always similar. Herbst seems to produce more mandibular size increase over a similar treatment period.
本研究旨在比较 Herbst 和 Xbow 矫治器在替牙晚期/恒牙早期安氏 II 类 1 分类错（牙合）患者中的牙颌面变化，并与未治疗的对照组进行比较。
回顾性队列包括 41 名接受 Herbst 矫治器治疗的患者（平均治疗时间为 14 个月，平均年龄为 11.3 岁）、41 名接受 Xbow 矫治器治疗的患者（平均治疗时间为 14 个月，平均年龄为 11.11 岁）和 25 名未经治疗的对照组患者（平均随访时间为 21 个月，平均年龄为 11.9 岁）。所有患者均具有安氏 II 类 1 分类错（牙合）特征。在第一阶段治疗/随访前后拍摄侧位头颅侧位片。数据采用方差分析，然后采用 Tukey 事后检验进行分析。
尽管三组患者在治疗前的头影测量值高度相似，但有 4 个变量存在差异（U6-FHp、L6-FHp、LAFH 和 PP-U1）。当比较平均变化（治疗/随访前后）时，切牙-下颌平面角（IMPA）、Wits 评价、L6-FHp、Co-Pog 和 PP-U1 测量值存在统计学差异。此外，与 Xbow 组相比，Herbst 组下颌磨牙的相对近中移动（增加 2.4mm）和下颌长度的增加（增加 3.2mm）更大。
两组均通过改善上下颌骨关系和下颌切牙的唇倾度以及下颌磨牙的相对近中移动来实现安氏 II 类错（牙合）的矫正，尽管两种矫治器都改善了咬合特征，但所呈现的变化并不总是相似的。与相似的治疗期相比，Herbst 似乎能产生更大的下颌骨大小增加。
