Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2012; 44(03): 173-182
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1323675
Übersichtsartikel
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Das Behandlungsspektrum der Herbst-Apparatur im Verlauf von 3 Jahrzehnten – eine Literaturübersicht

Herbst-Appliance Treatment Spectrum during 3 Decades – A Literature Review
J. Hourfar
1   Kieferorthopädische Fachpraxis, Reinheim
,
B. Ludwig
2   Kieferorthopädische Fachpraxis, Traben-Trarbach
,
S. Ruf
3   Poliklinik für Kieferorthopädie, Zentrum für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde Universität Gießen
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
18. Oktober 2012 (online)

Zusammenfassung

Studienziel: 

Analyse der Publikationen zur Herbstbehandlung hinsichtlich der klassischen Behandlungsindikation der Herbst-Apparatur sowie die Überprüfung der Datenlage bezüglich alternativer Indikationen zum Einsatz der Herbst-Apparatur.

Material und Methoden:

PubMed-Recherche über den Zeitraum 1980–2009 für 4 internationale kieferorthopädische Fachzeitschriften mit Gutachterverfahren (American Journal of Orthodontics/and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics und Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie). Die Auswertung erfolgte getrennt für die 3 Dekaden (1980–1989, 1990–1999 und 2000–2009).

Ergebnisse:

72 Publikationen erfüllten die Einschlusskriterien. Die überwiegende Zahl der Veröffentlichungen befasste sich mit der klassischen Indikation zur Behandlung der Klasse II, insbesondere derer der Klasse II/1. Ab der zweiten Dekade des untersuchten Zeitraumes stehen prospektive kontrollierte Studien zur Verfügung – die überwiegende Zahl der Studien ist jedoch retrospektiv ausgelegt und nur zu einem Teil kontrolliert. Zu alternativen Behandlungsindikationen – mit Ausnahme der Behandlung der Obstruktiven Schlafapnoe (n=1) – finden sich keine Publikationen.

Schlussfolgerung:

Die Herbst-Apparatur ist ein gut untersuchtes Therapiemittel – die Hauptindikation ist die Behandlung der Klasse-II-Anomalie, insbesondere derer der Klasse II/1.

Abstract

Aim:

Analysis of publications on Herbst treatment referring to the ‘classic indication’ (mandibular advancement) and evaluation of possible alternative treatment options employing the Herbst appliance.

Material and methods:

Via a structured PubMed-Search (period investigated: 1980–2009) publications (inclusion criteria: clinical research, review articles) of 4 international peer-reviewed journals (American Journal of Orthodontics/and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics and Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie) were screened. The analysis was performed separately for the 3 decades (years 1980–1989, 1990–1999 and 2000–2009).

Results:

72 publications met the inclusion criteria of this study mainly focusing on the treatment of class II division 1 malocclusions. The majority of the publications were retrospective and only a minor part of them was controlled. Prospective controlled studies were available starting with the second decade of the investigation period.

Except for a single study on treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) no publications on alternative treatment indications were found.

Conclusion:

The Herbst appliance is a scientifically well examined appliance for class II correction, particularly class II division 1 malocclusions.

 
  • Literatur

  • 1 Pancherz H. Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1979; 76 (04) 423-442
  • 2 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Orthognathic surgery and dentofacial orthopedics in adult Class II Division 1 treatment: mandibular sagittal split osteotomy versus Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126 (02) 140-152
  • 3 Pancherz H. History, Background, and Development of the Herbst Appliance. Semin Orthod 2003; 9: 3-11
  • 4 McNamara JA. Fabrication of the acrylic splint Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94 (01) 10-18
  • 5 McNamara JA, Howe RP. Clinical management of the acrylic splint Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94 (02) 142-149
  • 6 Howe RP. Lower premolar extraction/removable plastic Herbst treatment for mandibular retrognathia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 92 (04) 275-285
  • 7 Paulsen HU, Papadopoulos MA. The Herbst appliance. In: Papadopoulos MA. (ed.). Orthodontic Treatment of the Class II Noncompliant Patient: Current Principles and Techniques. Mosby Elsevier; Edinburgh-London-New York-Oxford-Philadelphia-St. Louis-Sydney-Toronto: 2006: 35-57
  • 8 Williamson EH. Removable Herbst appliance utilization in adult disk displacement. Facial Orthop Temporomandibular Arthrol 1985; 2 (06) 11-12
  • 9 Williamson EH. Removable Herbst treatment of anterior disk dislocation. Facial Orthop Temporomandibular Arthrol 1985; 2 (11) 12-15
  • 10 Williamson EH. Treatment of anterior disk displacement with the removable Herbst appliance. Facial Orthop Temporomandibular Arthrol 1985; 2 (12) 4-6
  • 11 Williamson EH. Skeletal change with long-term wear of the removable Herbst in a post-adolescent male with anterior disk displacement. Facial Orthop Temporomandibular Arthrol 1988; 5 (02) 3-5
  • 12 Wiechmann D, Schwestka-Polly R, Hohoff A. Herbst appliance in lingual orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134 (03) 439-446
  • 13 Sarnäs KV, Pancherz H, Rune B et al. Hemifacial microsomia treated with the Herbst appliance. Report of a case analyzed by means of roentgen stereometry and metallic implants. Am J Orthod 1982; 82 (01) 68-74
  • 14 Lawton HM, Battagel JM, Kotecha B. A comparison of the Twin Block and Herbst mandibular advancement splints in the treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a prospective study. Eur J Orthod 2005; 27 (01) 82-90
  • 15 Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. Muscle activity in class II, division 1 malocclusions treated by bite jumping with the Herbst appliance. An electromyographic study. Am J Orthod 1980; 78 (03) 321-329
  • 16 Pancherz H. The effect of continuous bite jumping on the dentofacial complex: a follow-up study after Herbst appliance treatment of class II malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 1981; 3 (01) 49-60
  • 17 Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. The effect of continuous bite jumping with the Herbst appliance on the masticatory system: a functional analysis of treated class II malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 1982; 4 (01) 37-44
  • 18 Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982; 82 (02) 104-113
  • 19 Pancherz H, Hansen K. Occlusal changes during and after Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Eur J Orthod 1986; 8 (04) 215-228
  • 20 Pancherz H, Hansen K. Mandibular anchorage in Herbst treatment. Eur J Orthod 1988; 10 (02) 149-164
  • 21 Hägg U, Pancherz H. Dentofacial orthopaedics in relation to chronological age, growth period and skeletal development. An analysis of 72 male patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 1988; 10 (03) 169-176
  • 22 Pancherz H, Malmgren O, Hägg U et al. Class II correction in Herbst and Bass therapy. Eur J Orthod 1989; 11 (01) 17-30
  • 23 Valant JR, Sinclair PM. Treatment effects of the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95 (02) 138-147
  • 24 Wieslander L. Intensive treatment of severe Class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1984; 86 (01) 1-13
  • 25 Pancherz H, Hägg U. Dentofacial orthopedics in relation to somatic maturation. An analysis of 70 consecutive cases treated with the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod 1985; 88 (04) 273-287
  • 26 Hansen K, Pancherz H, Petersson A. Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance on the craniomandibular system with special reference to the TMJ. Eur J Orthod 1990; 12 (03) 244-253
  • 27 Pancherz H, Fackel U. The skeletofacial growth pattern pre- and post-dentofacial orthopaedics. A long-term study of Class II malocclusions treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 1990; 12 (02) 209-218
  • 28 Hansen K, Pancherz H, Hägg U. Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance in relation to the treatment growth period: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1991; 13 (06) 471-481
  • 29 Pancherz H. The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100 (03) 220-233
  • 30 Hansen K, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment in relation to normal growth development: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod 1992; 14 (04) 285-295
  • 31 Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. The headgear effect of the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric long-term study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103 (06) 510-520
  • 32 Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod 1994; 16 (04) 275-286
  • 33 Hansen K, Koutsonas TG, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment on the mandibular incisor segment: a cephalometric and biometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112 (01) 92-103
  • 34 Konik M, Pancherz H, Hansen K. The mechanism of Class II correction in late Herbst treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112 (01) 87-91
  • 35 Wong GW, So LL, Hägg U. A comparative study of sagittal correction with the Herbst appliance in two different ethnic groups. Eur J Orthod 1997; 19 (02) 195-204
  • 36 Pancherz H, Ruf S, Kohlhas P. „Effective condylar growth“ and chin position changes in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic long-term study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114 (04) 437-446
  • 37 Obijou C, Pancherz H. Herbst appliance treatment of Class II, division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112 (03) 287-291
  • 38 McNamara Jr JA, Howe RP, Dischinger TG. A comparison of the Herbst and Fränkel appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 98 (02) 134-144
  • 39 Schiavoni R, Grenga V, Macri V. Treatment of Class II high angle malocclusions with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 102 (05) 393-409
  • 40 Wieslander L. Long-term effect of treatment with the headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Stability or relapse?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104 (04) 319-329
  • 41 Windmiller EC. The acrylic-splint Herbst appliance: a cephalometric evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104 (01) 73-84
  • 42 Ruf S, Pancherz H. The effect of Herbst appliance treatment on the mandibular plane angle: a cephalometric roentgenographic study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110 (02) 225-229
  • 43 Paulsen HU. Morphological changes of the TMJ condyles of 100 patients treated with the Herbst appliance in the period of puberty to adulthood: a long-term radiographic study. Eur J Orthod 1997; 19 (06) 657-668
  • 44 Omblus J, Malmgren O, Pancherz H et al. Long-term effects of Class II correction in Herbst and Bass therapy. Eur J Orthod 1997; 19 (02) 185-193
  • 45 Ruf S, Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction during Herbst therapy in relation to the vertical jaw base relationship: a cephalometric roentgenographic study. Angle Orthod 1997; 67 (04) 271-276
  • 46 Ruf S, Pancherz H, Long-term TMJ. effects of Herbst treatment: a clinical and MRI study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114 (05) 475-483
  • 47 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint growth adaptation in Herbst treatment: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20 (04) 375-388
  • 48 Croft RS, Buschang PH, English JD et al. A cephalometric and tomographic evaluation of Herbst treatment in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116 (04) 435-443
  • 49 Pancherz H, Ruf S, Thomalske-Faubert C. Mandibular articular disk position changes during Herbst treatment: a prospective longitudinal MRI study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116 (02) 207-214
  • 50 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 1999; 69 (03) 239-246
  • 51 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: A prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115 (06) 607-618
  • 52 Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara Jr JA. Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115 (04) 429-438
  • 53 Hiyama S, Ono PT, Ishiwata Y et al. Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations following mandibular forward positioning induced by the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 2000; 70 (06) 442-453
  • 54 Leung DK, Hägg U. An electromyographic investigation of the first six months of progressive mandibular advancement of the Herbst appliance in adolescents. Angle Orthod 2001; 71 (03) 177-184
  • 55 Baltromejus S, Ruf S, Pancherz H. Effective temporomandibular joint growth and chin position changes: Activator versus Herbst treatment. A cephalometric roentgenographic study. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24 (06) 627-637
  • 56 Hägg U, Du X, Rabie AB. Initial and late treatment effects of headgear-Herbst appliance with mandibular step-by-step advancement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122 (05) 477-485
  • 57 Du X, Hägg U, Rabie AB. Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step-by-step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of the mandible. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24 (02) 167-174
  • 58 Pancherz H, Fischer S. Amount and direction of temporomandibular joint growth changes in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation. Angle Orthod 2003; 73 (05) 493-501
  • 59 O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F et al. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124 (02) 128-137
  • 60 Burkhardt DR, McNamara Jr JA, 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123 (02) 108-116
  • 61 Pancherz H, Michailidou C. Temporomandibular joint growth changes in hyperdivergent and hypodivergent Herbst subjects. A long-term roentgenographic cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126 (02) 153-161
  • 62 de Almeida MR, Henriques JF, de Almeida RR et al. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 2005; 75 (04) 540-547
  • 63 Weschler D, Pancherz H. Efficiency of three mandibular anchorage forms in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Angle Orthod 2005; 75 (01) 23-27
  • 64 Phan KL, Bendeus M, Hägg U et al. Comparison of the headgear activator and Herbst appliance – effects and post-treatment changes. Eur J Orthod 2006; 28 (06) 594-604
  • 65 Bock N, Pancherz H. Herbst treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in retrognathic and prognathic facial types. Angle Orthod 2006; 76 (06) 930-941
  • 66 Nasiopoulos AT, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA et al. Premolar root changes following treatment with the banded herbst appliance. J Orofac Orthop 2006; 67 (04) 261-271
  • 67 Ruf S, Pancherz H. 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 2006; 28 (04) 352-360
  • 68 Aidar LA, Abrahão M, Yamashita HK et al. Herbst appliance therapy and temporomandibular joint disc position: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129 (04) 486-496
  • 69 von Bremen J, Pancherz H, Ruf S. Reduced mandibular cast splints an alternative in Herbst therapy? A prospective multicentre study. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29 (06) 609-613
  • 70 Sloss EA, Southard KA, Qian F et al. Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133 (04) 509-514
  • 71 Aidar LA, Dominguez GC, Abrahão M et al. Effects of Herbst appliance treatment on temporomandibular joint disc position and morphology: a prospective magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136 (03) 412-424
  • 72 Martin J, Pancherz H. Mandibular incisor position changes in relation to amount of bite jumping during Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment: a radiographic-cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136 (01) 44-51
  • 73 von Bremen J, Bock N, Ruf S. Is Herbst-multibracket appliance treatment more efficient in adolescents than in adults?. Angle Orthod 2009; 79 (01) 173-177
  • 74 Baccetti T, Franchi L, Stahl F. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135 (06) 698.e1-e10
  • 75 Schweitzer M, Pancherz H. The incisor-lip relationship in Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2001; 71 (05) 358-363
  • 76 Bock N, Ruf S. Post-treatment occlusal changes in Class II division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30 (06) 606-613
  • 77 Bock NC, Santo C, Pancherz H. Facial profile and lip position changes in adult Class II, Division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst-Multibracket appliance. A radiographic cephalometric pilot study. J Orofac Orthop 2009; 70 (01) 51-62
  • 78 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Does bite-jumping damage the TMJ? A prospective longitudinal clinical and MRI study of Herbst patients. Angle Orthod 2000; 70 (03) 183-199
  • 79 Manfredi C, Cimino R, Trani A et al. Skeletal changes of Herbst appliance therapy investigated with more conventional cephalometrics and European norms. Angle Orthod 2001; 71 (03) 170-176
  • 80 Schaefer AT, McNamara Jr JA, Franchi L et al. A cephalometric comparison of treatment with the Twin-block and stainless steel crown Herbst appliances followed by fixed appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126 (01) 7-15
  • 81 van Laecken R, Martin CA, Dischinger T et al. Treatment effects of the edgewise Herbst appliance: a cephalometric and tomographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130 (05) 582-593
  • 82 Schiöth T, Vonbremen J, Pancherz H et al Complications during Herbst appliance treatment with reduced mandibular cast splints: a prospective, clinical multicenter study. J Orofac Orthop 2007; 68 (04) 321-327
  • 83 Hägglund P, Segerdal S, Forsberg CM. The integrated Herbst appliance-treatment effects in a group of adolescent males with Class II malocclusions compared with growth changes in an untreated control group. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30 (02) 120-127
  • 84 Chaiyongsirisern A, Rabie AB, Wong RW. Stepwise advancement Herbst appliance versus mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Treatment effects and long-term stability of adult Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2009; 79 (06) 1084-1094