Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Orthodontics 1988 10(1):149-164; doi:10.1093/ejo/10.1.149
© 1988 by European Orthodontic Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pancherz, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hansen, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pancherz, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hansen, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Mandibular anchorage in Herbst treatment

Hans Pancherz*,1 and Ken Hansen**

*Department of Orthodontics, University of Giessen West Germany
**Department of Orthodontics, University of Lund Malmo, Sweden

1Professor Dr Hans Pancherz Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie Zentrum für ZMK Justus-Liebig-Universität Schlangenzahl 14 D-6300 Giessen West Germany

The purpose of this investigation was: (1) to analyse the efficiency of 5 mandibular anchorage systems in Herbst treatment and (2) to ascertain if recovery in lower incisor tooth movements after treatment resulted in anterior crowding. The sample consisted of 65 Class II, division 1 malocclusions treated with the Herbst appliance for an average period of 7 months. The patients were re-examined 6 and 12 months post treatment. The following mandibular anchorage systems were utilized: (1) Premolar anchorage (n = 16), (2) Premolar-Molar anchorage (n = 20), (3) Pelott anchorage (n = 6), (4) Labial-Lingual anchorage (n = 10) and (5) Class III elastics (n = 13). The method comprised an analysis of mandibular tracings from mouth open profile roentgenograms and mandibular dental casts. The results revealed that none of the 5 anchorage systems used in Herbst treatment could prevent anterior movement of the mandibular incisors and molars. About 80 per cent of the incisor tooth movements and 20 per cent of the molar tooth movements recovered after treatment. The post treatment tooth position changes were not considered to result in anterior crowding.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
N. Bock and S. Ruf
Post-treatment occlusal changes in Class II division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst appliance
Eur J Orthod, December 1, 2008; 30(6): 606 - 613.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
J. von Bremen, H. Pancherz, and S. Ruf
Reduced mandibular cast splints an alternative in Herbst therapy? A prospective multicentre study
Eur J Orthod, December 1, 2007; 29(6): 609 - 613.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.