The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Complications in Removable Mandibular Acrylic Splint and Cantilever Herbst for Management of Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective Study

RK Kanuru, Vinny Bhasin, KK Dodda, Era Singh, Shekhar Grover

Citation Information : Kanuru R, Bhasin V, Dodda K, Singh E, Grover S. Comparison of Complications in Removable Mandibular Acrylic Splint and Cantilever Herbst for Management of Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (5):363-365.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2047

Published Online: 01-08-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction

Numerous appliances are present for the management of class II malocclusion. We have conducted a study to compare the clinical complications during treatment with either a removable mandibular acrylic splint (RMS) or with a cantilever Herbst (HC) appliance for the management of class II malocclusion.

Materials and methods

This study consisted of records of 114 patients (61 males, 53 females), who were divided into two groups. Group I received RMS and group II received HC for the treatment of class II, Division 1 malocclusion. They were further subdivided according to the telescopic system used [Dentaurum type I or propulsor mandibular abzil (PMA)] and fixation mode (splint with crowns or GripTite bands). Patients’ clinical records were assessed to identify clinical complications.

Results

The results of the study showed that the incidence of complications during treatment in both groups was statistically nonsignificant. The complications with either crown or band were also statistically nonsignificant. The Dentaurum group showed more susceptibility to complications than the PMA group.

Conclusion

The PMA telescopic system is more efficient as compared with Dentaurum. Complication resulting from Herbst appliance is independent type of appliance used and mode of fixation.

Clinical significance

Herbst appliance is the treatment of choice for class II malocclusion.

How to cite this article

Kanuru RK, Bhasin V, Khatri A, Dodda KK, Singh E, Grover S. Comparison of Complications in Removable Mandibular Acrylic Splint and Cantilever Herbst for Management of Class II Malocclusion: A Retrospective Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(5):363-365.

PDF Share
  1. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosm 1899 Mar;41(3):241-264.
  2. ; Fields, HW.; Sarver, DM. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007.
  3. Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1979 Oct;76(4):423-442.
  4. Comparative study of complications during Herbst treatment with cantilever bite jumper and removable mandibular acrylic splint. Dent Press J Orthod 2011 Jan-Feb;16(1):29-31.
  5. A comparison of splinted and banded Herbst appliances: treatment changes and complications. Aust Orthod J 2002 Nov;18(2):76-81.
  6. Complications during Herbst appliance treatment. J Clin Orthod 2004 Mar;38(3):130-133.
  7. Intensive treatment of severe class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1984 Jul;86(1):1-13.
  8. Complications during Herbst appliance treatment with reduced mandibular cast splints: a prospective, clinical multicenter study. J Orofac Orthop 2007 Jul;68(4):321-327.
  9. 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 Jun;135(6):698.e1-698.e10.
  10. Mechanisms of class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase class II therapy: 1 year follow-up. Prog Orthod 2013 Sep;14:27.
  11. Retrospective study of clinical complications during orthodontic treatment with either a removable mandibular acrylic splint Herbst or with a cantilever Herbst. Angle Orthod 2015 Jan;85(1):64-71.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.