Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Soft tissue profile changes after Functional Mandibular Advancer or Herbst appliance treatment in class II patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of the present study is to compare the effects on soft tissue profile in class II patients after treatment with either “Functional Mandibular Advancer” (FMA) or Herbst appliance.

Materials and methods

The study included n = 42 patients treated with either FMA (n = 21) or Herbst appliance (n = 21) by the same experienced orthodontist. The treatment followed a single-step advancement protocol. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed through a set of customized measurements. The actual therapeutic effect was calculated using data from a growth survey. After testing for normal distribution and homogeneity of variance, data were analyzed by one-sample Student’s t tests and independent Student’s t tests. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

For both FFAs, significant upper lip retrusion, increase in lower lip’s thickness, and length of the lower face occurred. Additionally, significant lower lip retrusion and straightening of the profile were found in FMA and Herbst appliance patients. All remaining variables revealed no significant differences.

Conclusions

Treatment-related changes on the facial soft tissue profile could be regarded similar in class II patients treated with FMA or Herbst appliance. No treatment-related changes that were specific for FMA or Herbst appliance could be identified. Only moderate changes were noted comparing pre- and posttreatment soft tissue profiles.

Clinical relevance

Despite proven differences in skeletal and dental treatment effects, the facial profile has not to be taken into consideration when choosing between FMA and Herbst appliance for class II treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bishara SE (2006) Class II malocclusions: diagnostic and clinical considerations with and without treatment. Semin Orthod 12:11–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Flores-Mir C, Major MP, Major PW (2006) Soft tissue changes with fixed functional appliances in class II division 1. Angle Orthod 76:712–720

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koretsi V, Zymperdikas VF, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA (2015) Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 37:418–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kinzinger GSM, Lisson JA, Frye L, Gross U, Hourfar J (2017) A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance. Clin Oral Investig 1–12

  5. Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M (1994) Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod 16:275–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Peck H, Peck S (1970) A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 40:284–318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pancherz H (1979) Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 76:423–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kinzinger G, Ostheimer J, Förster F, Kwandt PB, Reul H, Diedrich P (2002) Development of a new fixed functional appliance for treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion first report. J Orofac Orthop 63:384–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pancherz H (2003) History, background, and development of theHerbst appliance. Semin Orthod 9:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Herbst E (1934) Dreißigjährige Erfahrungen mit dem Retentions-Scharnier. Zahnärztl Rundsch 43:1515–1524

    Google Scholar 

  11. Herbst E (1934) Dreißigjährige Erfahrungen mit dem Retentions-Scharnier. Zahnärztl Rundsch 43:1563–1568

    Google Scholar 

  12. Herbst E (1934) Dreißigjährige Erfahrungen mit dem Retentions-Scharnier. Zahnärztl Rundsch 34:1611–1616

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pancherz H, Ruf S (2008) The Herbst appliance: research-based clinical management. Quintessence, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kinzinger GS, Diedrich PR (2005) Bite jumping with the Functional Mandibular Advancer. J Clin Orthod 39:696–700

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruf S, Pancherz H (1999) Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 115:607–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Frye L, Diedrich PR, Kinzinger GS (2009) Class II treatment with fixed functional orthodontic appliances before and after the pubertal growth peak - a cephalometric study to evaluate differential therapeutic effects. J Orofac Orthop 70:511–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kinzinger G, Kober C, Diedrich P (2007) Topography and morphology of the mandibular condyle during fixed functional orthopedic treatment—a magnetic resonance imaging study. J Orofac Orthop 68:124–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kinzinger G, Frye L, Diedrich P (2009) Class II treatment in adults: comparing camouflage orthodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthognathic surgery—a cephalometric study to evaluate various therapeutic effects. J Orofac Orthop 70:63–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA (2016) Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 38:113–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ruf S, Pancherz H (1999) Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 69:239–246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Baysal A, Uysal T (2013) Soft tissue effects of twin block and Herbst appliances in patients with class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Eur J Orthod 35:71–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. de Almeida MR, Flores-Mir C, Brandao AG, de Almeida RR, de Almeida-Pedrin RR (2008) Soft tissue changes produced by a banded-type Herbst appliance in late mixed dentition patients. World J Orthod 9:121–131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruf S, Pancherz H (2006) Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of class II division 1 malocclusions in early and late adulthood. A prospective cephalometric study of consecutively treated subjects. Eur J Orthod 28:352–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kinzinger G, Diedrich P (2005) Skeletal effects in class II treatment with the Functional Mandibular Advancer (FMA)? J Orofac Orthop 66:469–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bhatia SN, Leighton BC (1993) A manual of facial growth: a computer analysis of longitudinal cephalometric growth data. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  27. IRCP (2001) Radiation and your patient—a guide for medical practitioners. ICRP Supporting Guidance 2. Available at: http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Supporting%20Guidance%202. Accessed: 2016-15-03. Ann IRCP 31

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

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA (1978) Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 73:648–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Burstone CJ (1967) Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 53:262–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sinno HH, Markarian MK, Ibrahim AM, Lin SJ (2014) The ideal nasolabial angle in rhinoplasty: a preference analysis of the general population. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:201–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gunay EA, Arun T, Nalbantgil D (2011) Evaluation of the immediate dentofacial changes in late adolescent patients treated with the Forsus FRD. Eur J Dent 5:423–432

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Oztoprak MO, Nalbantgil D, Uyanlar A, Arun T (2012) A cephalometric comparative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS(2)) and Forsus FRD appliances. Eur J Dent 6:302–310

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Uyanlar A, Nalbantgil D, Arun T (2014) Evaluation of dentofacial changes caused with Sabbagh Universal Spring in mandibular retrognathic patients: a pilot study. Dentistry 4:237

    Google Scholar 

  35. Meyer-Marcotty P, Kochel J, Richter U, Richter F (2012) Reaction of facial soft tissues to treatment with a Herbst appliance. J Orofac Orthop 73:116–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tatarunaite E, Playle R, Hood K, Shaw W, Richmond S (2005) Facial attractiveness: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 127:676–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Xu TM, Korn EL, Liu Y, Oh HS, Lee KH, Boyd RL, Baumrind S (2008) Facial attractiveness: ranking of end-of-treatment facial photographs by pairs of Chinese and US orthodontists. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 134:74–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Varlık SK, Demirbas E, Orhan M (2010) Influence of lower facial height changes on frontal facial attractiveness and perception of treatment need by lay people. Angle Orthod 80:1159–1164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. von Bremen J, Erbe C, Pancherz H, Ruf S (2014) Facial-profile attractiveness changes in adult patients treated with the Herbst appliance. J Orofac Orthop 75:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mees S, Jimenez Bellinga R, Mommaerts MY, De Pauw GA (2013) Preferences of AP position of the straight Caucasian facial profile. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 41:755–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT (2012) Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 114:303–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 Dentofac Orthop 126:140–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Booij JW, Goeke J, Bronkhorst EM, Katsaros C, Ruf S (2013) Class II treatment by extraction of maxillary first molars or Herbst appliance: dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects in comparison. J Orofac Orthop 74:52–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Barnett GA, Higgins DW, Major PW, Flores-Mir C (2008) Immediate skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown- or banded type Herbst appliance on class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 78:361–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pancherz H (1982) The mechanism of class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 82:104–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Aras I, Pasaoglu A, Olmez S, Unal I, Tuncer AV, Aras A (2016) Comparison of stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Functional Mandibular Advancer in class II division 1 treatment. Angle Orthod 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  47. Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC (1987) Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 91:385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ricketts RM (1960) Cephalometric synthesis. Am J Orthod 46:647–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ramos AL, Sakima MT, Pinto Ados S, Bowman SJ (2005) Upper lip changes correlated to maxillary incisor retraction—a metallic implant study. Angle Orthod 75:499–505

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hershey HG (1972) Incisor tooth retraction and subsequent profile change in postadolescent female patients. Am J Orthod 61:45–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nanda V, Gutman B, Bar E, Alghamdi S, Tetradis S, Lusis AJ, Eskin E, Moon W (2015) Quantitative analysis of 3-dimensional facial soft tissue photographic images: technical methods and clinical application. Prog Orthod 16:015–0082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Cevidanes LHC, Motta A, Proffit WR, Ackerman JL, Styner M (2010) Cranial base superimposition for 3D evaluation of soft tissue changes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 137:S120–S129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Saarland University, Universitätskliniken 56, 66421, Homburg, Saar, Germany

    Jan Hourfar, Jörg Alexander Lisson & Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger

  2. Wuppertal, Germany

    Ulrich Gross

  3. Essen, Germany

    Linda Frye

Authors
  1. Jan Hourfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jörg Alexander Lisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulrich Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linda Frye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jörg Alexander Lisson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

The work received no funding.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Ethical approval for this retrospective study was granted by the Ethics Commission of University of Aachen, Germany, No. 171/08.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hourfar, J., Lisson, J.A., Gross, U. et al. Soft tissue profile changes after Functional Mandibular Advancer or Herbst appliance treatment in class II patients. Clin Oral Invest 22, 971–980 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2177-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2177-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation