Esthetic perception of facial profile changes in Class II patients treated with Herbst or Forsus appliances

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons for facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment using Herbst or Forsus appliances. Materials and Methods Pre- and posttreatment facial profile contour images of 20 Class II patients treated with Herbst (group H; n = 10) and Forsus (group F; n = 10) appliances were analyzed by 30 orthodontists and 30 laypersons, who graded them from 1 (unattractive) to 10 (very attractive) using a visual analog scale. Two assessments were carried out with a 15 day-interval. In the first evaluation, 40 images were presented in a random sequence. In the second evaluation, initial and final facial profile images of each patient were randomly presented side by side. To compare groups in relation to treatment method, Mann-Whitney tests were used. To evaluate differences between time points, Wilcoxon tests were used. Results In the first evaluation, there was a significant difference between initial and final images only for group H, for both laypersons (P = .017) and orthodontists (P = .037). There was also a significant difference between laypersons and orthodontists in their ratings of posttreatment Herbst appliance profiles (P = .028). There was no significant difference between initial and final facial profile images for group F and no significant differences between or within evaluator groups in their ratings of initial or final Forsus appliance profiles. In the second evaluation, there was a significant difference between appliance groups only for laypersons, who considered cases treated with the Herbst appliance more attractive than those treated with the Forsus (P = .031). Laypersons also considered Herbst profiles more attractive than did orthodontists (P = .047). Conclusions Class II malocclusion treatment using the Herbst appliance may produce a more esthetically improved facial profile silhouette compared with Forsus appliances. The magnitude of perceived changes may not be considered clinically relevant.

Attractive perception of profile class II patients treated with extractions versus dentoalveolar mandibular advancement devices

“…In both studies 18,19 results are similar to ours: Class II Treatment had positive effect in both cases.…”

“…Moresca et al 18 focused on Class II malocclusion treatment using the Herbst appliance, concluding that may produce a more esthetically improved facial profile silhouette compared with the one using the Forsus appliance. Our results did not compare skeletal but only dentoalveolar advancement devices, though.…”

Attractiveness of the facial profile: comparison of Class II patients treated with Twin Force® or intermaxillary elastics

“…Recent researches have indicated that orthodontic treatment with functional appliances is associated with increased facial profile attractiveness, 20 , 26 , 27 and that functional treatment should be considered as a treatment option to improve the facial appearance of Class II subjects. 26 Besides, Class II treatment with the Herbst appliance may produce a more esthetically improved facial profile silhouette when compared to the Forsus ® appliance, but the changes perceived by evaluators may not be considered clinically relevant.…”

Herbst Apareyi̇ İle Yapilan Ortodonti̇k Tedavi̇de Karşilaşilan Kompli̇kasyonlar

“…6,7,[12][13][14] Herbst tedavisi sonucunda oluşan iskeletsel ve dişsel değişimler, yumuşak dokuları da etkilemektedir ve tedavi sonrasında hastaların profilinde iyileşme olduğu bildirilmektedir. 15,16 Temel olarak, Herbst apareyi ile başarılı bir tedavi için, maksiller ve mandibular dişlerin iyi hizalanması ve diş pozisyonlarının özellikle sagittal yönde normal pozisyonda olması istenmektedir. Hareketli fonksiyonel ortopedik apareylerin aksine, Herbst apareyinin avantajları aşağıda belirtildiği şekilde özetlenmektedir: 6 1-Herbst apareyi dişlere sabitlendiği için hastadan herhangi bir yardım almadan günde 24 saat kesintisiz çalışır.…”