Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2016; 48(03): 177-187
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-114424
Übersichtsartikel
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Stabilität nach Therapie der Klasse II mit festsitzenden funktionskieferorthopädischen Geräten – systematische Übersicht und Metaanalyse[*]

Stability of Class II Fixed Functional Appliance Therapy — A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
N. C. Bock
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Universität Gießen
,
J. von Bremen
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Universität Gießen
,
S. Ruf
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Universität Gießen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 October 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziele: Systematische Suche nach wissenschaftlich evidenten Belegen zur Stabilität von Behandlungsergebnissen nach Therapie der Klasse II mit festsitzenden funktionskieferorthopädischen Apparaturen und Untersuchung möglicher Unterschiede zwischen einzelnen Geräten.

Suchstrategien: Gesucht wurde elektronisch in Datenbanken und kieferorthopädischen Fachzeitschriften (bis Dezember 2013) und zusätzlich per Hand. Neben den Namen der identifizierten Apparaturen wurde zusätzlich auch der Terminus „fixed functional“ in Kombination mit folgenden Begriffen abgefragt: „long-term“, „post-Tx“, „relapse“, „retention“ und „stability“.

Auswahlkriterien: Um in die Auswertung aufgenommen zu werden, mussten die Artikel genaue Daten zur Therapie der Klasse II mit festsitzenden funktionskieferorthopädischen Apparaturen (>5 Patienten), zum posttherapeutischen Zeitraum≥1 Jahr, zur Untersuchung des ANB-Winkels, der WITS-Wert, der Molarenbeziehung, der Konvexität des Weichteilprofils ohne Einbeziehung der Nase, zu Overjet bzw. Overbite enthalten.

Datenerhebung und Auswertung: Die Literatursuche erbrachte 20 wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen, die sich mit nur 2 von 76 identifizierten Apparaturen (Herbst-Scharnier und Twin Force Bite Corrector) beschäftigt hatten. Da nur eine Studie den Twin Force Bite Corrector untersucht hatte, konnte eine Metaanalyse nur zum Herbst-Scharnier durchgeführt werden. Die Daten wurden erhoben, gepoolt und nach der Anzahl der Patienten in den jeweiligen Untersuchungen gewichtet.

Ergebnisse: Die Durchschnittswerte für das Rezidiv nach Abschluss der Therapie (prozentual im Vergleich zu den Veränderungen im Verlauf der Behandlung) lauten: ANB-Winkel 0,2 Grad (12,4%), WITS-Wert 0,5 mm (19,5%), sagittale Molarenbeziehung 1,2 mm/0,1 PB (21,8%/6,5%), Konvexität des Weichteilprofils ohne Einbeziehung der Nase weniger als 0,1 Grad (1,0%), Overjet 1,8 mm (26,2%), Overbite Klasse II/1 1,4 mm (44,7%), Overbite Klasse II/2 1,0 mm (22,2%).

Schlussfolgerungen: Mit Ausnahme des Herbst-Scharniers liegen für die meisten festsitzenden funktionskieferorthopädischen Apparaturen bisher keinerlei wissenschaftliche Angaben zur Stabilität der Ergebnisse nach Abschluss der Behandlungsmaßnahmen vor. Auch wenn für die Mehrzahl der Studien zu festsitzenden Klasse-II-Mechaniken das Evidenz-Level eher gering ist, konnte dennoch für die meisten Variablen eine gute dentoskelettale Stabilität der Behandlungsergebnisse ohne klinisch relevante Veränderungen gefunden werden.

Summary

Objectives: To systematically search for scientific evidence concerning the stability of treatment (Tx) results achieved by means of Class II fixed functional appliance therapy and to assess possible differences between appliances.

Search Methods: An electronic search of databases and orthodontic journals was carried out (until December 2013), with supplemental hand searching. In addition to the names of all identified appliances, the term fixed functional was used in combination with each of the following search terms: long-term, post-Tx, relapse, retention, stability.

Selection Criteria: To be included in the review, the articles had to contain clear data on: Class II Tx with a fixed functional appliance (>5 patients), post-Tx period≥1 year, assessment of ANB angle, Wits appraisal, molar relationship, soft-tissue profile convexity excluding the nose, overjet and/or overbite.

Data Collection and Analysis: The literature search revealed 20 scientific investigations which corresponded to only 2 of the 76 identified appliances (Herbst and Twin Force Bite Corrector). As only one publication was found for the Twin Force Bite Corrector, a meta-analysis could only be performed for Herbst Tx. The data were extracted, pooled and weighted according to the number of patients in each study.

Results: The mean values for post-Tx relapse (percentages relative to the Tx changes) were: ANB angle 0.2 degrees (12.4%), Wits appraisal 0.5 mm (19.5%), sagittal molar relationship 1.2 mm/0.1 cusp widths (21.8/6.5%); soft-tissue profile convexity excluding nose less than 0.1 degrees (1.0%), overjet 1.8 mm (26.2%), overbite Class II:1 1.4 mm (44.7%), overbite Class II:2 1.0 mm (22.2%).

Conclusions: The scientific evidence concerning the stability of Tx results is inexistent for most fixed functional appliances for Class II correction except for Herbst appliance Tx. Even if the evidence level of most included studies is rather low, good dentoskeletal stability without clinically relevant changes was found for most variables.

Schlüsselwörter

festsitzenden funktionskieferorthopädischen Apparaturen - Stabilität

Key words

fixed functional appliances - stability

* Dieser Artikel ist im englischen Original erschienen im: European Journal of Orthodontics, 2016, 38 (2): 129–139. Die Zweitveröffentlichung erfolgt auf Initiative der IOK. Für die Übersetzung zeichnen die Autoren nicht verantwortlich.


Ergänzendes Material

    Ergänzendes Material (Anhang Tabelle S1–S5 und Abb. S1–S3) findet sich unter http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-114424.
  • Ergänzendes Material
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Bažant V, Miksa J. Die Häufigkeit der Okklusionsanomalien in sagittaler Richtung in der Klassifikation nach Angle bei Erwachsenen. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1960; 21: 328-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brunelle JA, Bhat M, Lipton JA. Prevalence and distribution of selected occlusal characteristics in the US population, 1988–1991. J Dent Res 1996; 75: 706-713
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ingervall B. Prevalence of dental and occlusal anomalies in Swedish conscripts. Acta Odontol Scand 1974; 32: 83-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lippold C, van den Bos L, Hohoff A et al. Interdisciplinary study of orthopedic and orthodontic findings in pre-school infants. J Orofac Orthop 2003; 64: 330-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH et al. 2008; JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2008; 42: 625-640
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Baxmann M (Hrsg.) Festsitzende Apparaturen zur Klasse-II-Therapie. Berlin: Quintessenz Verlags Gmbh.; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Hourfar J, Ludwig B, Ruf S et al. Festsitzende Behandlungsapparaturen zur Therapie der Distalbisslage – Eine Literaturübersicht. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 2012; 44: 183-192
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Papadopoulos MA. Orthodontic Treatment of the Class II Noncompliant Patient. Philadelphia PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Aelbers CMF, Dermaut LR. Orthopedics in orthodontics: Part I, Fiction or reality – a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 513-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Al-Jewair TS, Preston CB, Moll EM et al. A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 907-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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 () 698.e1-698.e10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Barnett GA, Higgins DW, Major PW et al. Immediate skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the crown- or banded type Herbst appliance on Class II division 1 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 361-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cope JB, Buschang PH, Cope DD et al. Quantitative evaluation of craniofacial changes with Jasper Jumper therapy. Angle Orthod 1994; 64: 113-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Flores-Mir C, Major MP, Major PW. Soft tissue changes with fixed functional appliances in Class II division 1. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 712-720
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Flores-Mir C, Ayeh A, Goswani A et al. Skeletal and dental changes in Class II division 1 malocclusions treated with splint-type Herbst appliances. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 376-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V et al. Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 678-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ghislanzoni LT, Toll DE, Defraia E et al. Treatment and posttreatment outcomes induced by the Mandibular Advancement Repositioning Appliance; a controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 684-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Guimarães Jr CH, Henriques JF, Janson G et al. Prospective study of dentoskeletal changes in Class II division malocclusion treatment with twin force bite corrector. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 319-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB et al. Class II nonextraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kinzinger G, Diedrich P. Skeletal effects in class II treatment with the functional mandibular advancer (FMA)?. J Orofac Orthop 2005; 66: 469-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Konik M, Pancherz H, Hansen K. The mechanism of Class II correction in late Herbst treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 87-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Küçükkeleş N, Ilhan I, Orgun IA. Treatment efficiency in skeletal Class II patients treated with the Jasper Jumper. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 449-456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McSherry PF, Bradley H. Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques. J Orthod 2000; 27: 219-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Obijou C, Pancherz H. Herbst appliance treatment of Class II, division 2 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 287-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pancherz H. Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1979; 76: 423-442
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 104-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pancherz H. The effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial adaptations to treatment with the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 1997; 3: 232-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. The headgear effect of the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric long-term study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103: 510-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pancherz H, Ruf S. The Herbst Appliance: Research-Based Clinical Management. Berlin: Quintessence Pub Co.; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 30 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: 437-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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: 607-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 1999; 69: 239-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Schrodt C, Pancherz H, Ruf S. Scientific evidence for the variety in bite jumping appliances. Eur J Orthod 2006; 28: e259
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shen G, Hägg U, Darendeliler M. Skeletal effects of bite jumping therapy on the mandible – removable vs. fixed functional appliances. Orthod Craniofac Res 2005; 8: 2-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Stromeyer EL, Caruso JM, DeVincenzo JP. A cephalometric study of the Class II correction effects of the Eureka Spring. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 203-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Stucki N, Ingervall B. The use of the Jasper Jumper for the correction of Class II malocclusion in the young permanent dentition. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 271-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wieslander L. Intensive treatment of severe Class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 1-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Dermaut LR, Aelbers CM. Orthopedics in orthodontics: Fiction or reality. A review of the literature – Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 667-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Millett DT, Cunningham SJ, O’Brien KD et al. Treatment and stability of Class II Division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142: 159.e9-169.e9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Ritto AK, Ferreira AP. Fixed functional appliances – a classification. Funct Orthod. 2000; 17: 12-30 32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M et al. Developing clinical guidelines. West J Med 1999; 170: 348-351
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA Group . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009; 3: e123-e130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52: 377-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Bock N, Pancherz H. Herbst treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in retrognathic and prognathic facial types. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 930-941
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Bock NC, Reiser B, Ruf S. Class II subdivision treatment with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 327-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Bock N, Ruf S. Post-treatment occlusal changes in Class II division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst appliance. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 606-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bock NC, Ruf S. Dentoskeletal changes in adult Class II division 1 Herbst treatment – how much is left after the retention period?. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34: 747-753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Bock NC, Ruf S. Class II division 2 treatment - does skeletal maturity influence success and stability?. J Orofac Orthop 2013; 74: 187-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 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: 51-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bock NC, von Bremen J, Ruf S. Occlusal stability of adult Class II Division 1 treatment with the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 146-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 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: 1084-1094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Chhibber A, Upadhyay M, Uribe F et al. Long-term stability of Class II correction with the Twin Force Bite Corrector. J Clin Orthod 2010; 44: 363-376
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hansen K, Iemamnueisuk P, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of the Herbst appliance on the dental arches and arch relationships: a biometric study. Br J Orthod 1995; 22: 123-134
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 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: 92-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Nelson B, Hägg U, Hansen K et al. A long-term follow-up study of Class II malocclusion correction after treatment with Class II elastics or fixed functional appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 499-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 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: 49-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Pancherz H. The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100: 220-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment. Eur J Orthod 1994; 16: 275-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Pancherz H, Bjerklin K, Lindskog-Stokland B et al. Thirty-two-year follow-up study of Herbst therapy: a biometric dental cast analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 15-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Pancherz H, Hansen K. Occlusal changes during and after Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Eur J Orthod 1986; 8: 215-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 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: 594-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Schweitzer M, Pancherz H. The incisor-lip relationship in Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 358-363
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Soytarhan A, Isiksal A. Treatment of Angle Class II/1 malocclusions with the Herbst appliance. Turk Ortodonti Derg 1990; 3: 94-101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Bondemark L, Holm AK, Hansen K et al. Long-term stability of orthodontic treatment and patient satisfaction. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 181-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Fidler BC, Årtun J, Joondeph DR et al. Long-term stability of Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusions with successful occlusal results at the end of active treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 276-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Franchi L, Pavoni C, Faltin Jr K et al. Long-term skeletal and dental effects and treatment timing for functional appliances in Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 334-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Dyer KC, Vaden JL, Harris EF. Relapse revisited – again. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142: 221-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Glenn G, Sinclair PM, Alexander RG. Nonextraction orthodontic therapy: posttreatment dental and skeletal stability. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 92: 321-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Lang G, Alfter G, Göz G et al. Retention and stability – taking various treatment parameters into account. J Orofac Orthop 2002; 63: 26-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Canut JA, Arias S. A long-term evaluation of treated Class II division 2 malocclusions: a retrospective study model analysis. Eur J Orthod 1999; 21: 377-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Kim TW, Little RM. Postretention assessment of deep overbite correction in Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1999; 69: 175-186
    Google Scholar
  • 72 Lapatki BG, Klatt A, Schulte-Mönting J et al. A retrospective cephalometric study for the quantitative assessment of relapse factors in cover-bite treatment. J Orofac Orthop 2004; 65: 475-488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar