HERBST APAREYİ İLE YAPILAN ORTODONTİK TEDAVİDE KARŞILAŞILAN KOMPLİKASYONLAR

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 31 Sayı: 3, 471 - 480, 14.07.2021

Elçin Esenlik Esra Yüksel Coşkun

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.804264

Öz

Mandibular retrognatinin mevcut olduğu hastalarda, mandibular büyüme stimülasyonu için çeşitli ortopedik apareylerden faydalanılmaktadır. Herbst apareyi, bu amaçla kullanılan sabit fonksiyonel ortopedik apareylerden biridir ve farklı tasarımlarla kullanılabilmektedir. Bu tedavi yöntemi ile hastanın yaşına ve büyüme-gelişim dönemine göre farklı etkiler elde edilebilmektedir. Apareylerin tasarım ve uygulanmasına bağlı olarak tedavi süresince; bant kırılması, bandın kaybolması, teleskop parçasının kırılması, splint kaybı ve splint kırılması, vida gevşemesi, piston deformasyonu ve akrilik parçanın kırılması ve yumuşak doku yaralanmaları gibi komplikasyonlarla karşılaşılırken; tedavi sonunda ise aşırı alt kesici diş protrüzyonu ve spee eğrisinin artması gibi durumlarla da karşılaşılabilmektedir. Kök rezorpsiyonu ve kondiler rezorpsiyona yol açtığı konusunda ise bilimsel bir kanıt henüz bulunmamaktadır. Bu derlemenin amacı Herbst apareyinin çeşitli tasarımlarıyla yapılan tedavi sırasında ve sonrasında karşılaşılan komplikasyonları sunmaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ortodontik aletler, fonksiyonel; Herbst apareyi; Komplikasyonlar
Complications Encountered in Orthodontic Treatment with the Herbst Appliance
ABSTRACT
Various orthopedic appliances are used for mandibular growth stimulation in patients with mandibular retrognathia. Herbst appliance is one of the fixed functional orthopedic appliances used for this purpose and it can be used with different modifications. Different effects can be obtained depending on the patient's age and growth and development stages with this treatment. Complications based on the design and application of the appliance such as band breakage, band loss, telescope breakage, splint loss, and splint breakage, screw loosening, piston deformation and acrylic fracture and soft tissue injuries can be encountered, whereas, excessive lower incisor protrusion and increased curve of spee can be seen at the end of treatment. However there is no evidence about its inducing root resorption and condylar resorption The aim of this review was to present the complications encountered during and after treatment with various designs of the Herbst appliance.
Key words: Orthodontic appliances, functional; Herbst Appliance; Complications

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ortodontik aletler, Herbst apareyi, Komplikasyonlar

Kaynakça

• 1. Pancherz H. History, Background and Development of the Herbst Appliance. Semin Orthod 2003;9:3-11.
• 2. Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982;82:104-13.
• 3. Dagsuyu I.M., Baydas B. Sınıf II Bölüm 1 malokluzyonlu bireylerde fonksiyonel ortopedik tedavi etkilerinin aksiyografik ve sefalometrik yontemlerle incelenmesi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2011; 3: 196-212.
• 4. Zhang C. Herbst appliance anchored with miniscrews: Some unsettled questions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2020;157:285-6.
• 5. Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod 1979;76: 423-42.
• 6. Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance-Its biologic effects and clinical use. Am J Orthod 1985;87:1-20.
• 7. Pancherz H, Hagg U. Dentofacial orthopedics in relation to somatic maturation. Am J Orthod 1985;88:273-87.
• 8. Pancherz H, Hansen K. Occlusal changes during and after Herbst treatment. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:215-28.
• 9. 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.
• 10. 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;19:195-204.
• 11. McNamara JA, Howe RP. Clinical management of the acrylic splint Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod 1988;94:142-9.
• 12. 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.
• 13. 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;115:607-18.
• 14. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 1999;69:239-46.
• 15. Martina S, Di Stefano ML, Paduano FP, Aiello D, Valletta R, Paduano S. Evaluation of Profile Changes in Class II Individuals Treated by Means of Herbst Miniscope Appliance. Dent J (Basel) 2020; 8: 27.
• 16. Moresca AHK, de Moraes ND, Topolski F, Flores-Mir C, Moro A, Moresca RC, et al. Esthetic perception of facial profile changes in Class II patients treated with Herbst or Forsus appliances. Angle Orthod 2020;90:571-7.
• 17. Moro A, Janson G, Moresca R, Freitas MR, Henriques JFC. Comparative study of complications during Herbst treatment with Cantilever Bite Jumper and removable mandibular acrylic splint. Dental Press J Orthod 2011;16:1-10.
• 18. Hägg U, Tse EL, Rabie AB, Robinson W.A. Comparison of splinted and banded Herbst appliances: treatment changes and complications. Aust Orthod J 2002;18:76-81.
• 19. Sanden E, Pancherz H, Hansen K. Complications during Herbst appliance treatment. J Clin Orthod 2004;38:130-3.
• 20. Valant JR, Sinclair PM. Treatment effects of the Hersbt appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:138-47.
• 21. Moro A, Janson G, Freitas MR, Henriques JFC, Petrelli NE, Lauris JP. Class II correction with the Cantilever Bite Jumper. A variant of the Herbst. Angle Orthod 2009;79:221-9.
• 22. Schiöth T, von Bremen J, Pancherz H, Ruf S. Complications during Herbst appliance treatment with reduced mandibular cast splints: a prospective, clinical multicenter study. J Orofac Orthop 2007;68:321-7.
• 23. Wiechmann D, Vu J, Schwestka-Polly R, Helms HJ, Knösel M. Clinical complications during treatment with a modified Herbst appliance in combination with a lingual appliance. Head Face Med 2015;11:31.
• 24. Manni A, Cozzani M, Mazzotta L, Fiore VP, Mutinelli S. Acrylic splint Herbst and Hanks telescoping Herbst: a retrospective study of emergencies, retreatments, treatment times and failures. Int Orthod 2014;12:100-10.
• 25. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F. Sanjie Y, etal. Effectiveness of treatment for class II malocclusion whith the Herbst or Twin Block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod 2003;124:128-37.
• 26. Kanuru R, Bhasin V, Khatri A, 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;18:363-5.
• 27. Silva JF, Gerszewski C, Moresca RC, Correr GM, Flores-Mir C, Moro A. Retrospective study of clinical complications during orthodontic treatment with either a removable mandibular acrylic splint Herbst or with a cantilever Herbst. Angle Orthod 2015;85:64-71.
• 28. Manni A, Mutinelli S, Cerruto C, Giraudo P, Romano R, Cozzani M. Comparison of complications in the conventional telescopic Herbst rod and tube and Manni telescopic Herbst: A retrospective clinical study. Angle Orthod 2018;88:377-83.
• 29. Favale M, Di Luzio C, Caputo M, Bellisario A, Squillace F. The effectiveness of Herbst appliance in II class malocclusion. Webmed Central orthodontics 2017;8:1-5.
• 30. Pancherz H, Hansen K. Mandibular anchorage in Herbst treatment. Eur J Orthod 1988;10:149-64.
• 31. Pancherz H. The effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial adaptations to treatment with the Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod 1997;3:232-43.
• 32. Almeida MR, Henriques JFC, Almeida RR, Ursi W, McNamara JA Jr.. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition. Angle Orthod 2005;75:540-7.
• 33. Hagg 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;10:169-76.
• 34. Gerszewski C. Topolski F. Correr G. Gomes R. Dentoalveolar Evaluation of Lower Incisors by CBCT after Treatment with Herbst Appliance. Braz Dent J 2018;29:562-8.
• 35. Ruf S, Hansen K, Pancherz H. Does orthodontic proclination of lower incisors in children and adolescents cause gingival recession? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998;114:100-6.
• 36. Kucukkeles N, Sandalli T. Cephalometric evaluation of the therapeutic effects of the Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II. Div I. malocclusion. J Marmara Univ Dent Fac 1992;1:230-6.
• 37. Croft RS, Buschang PH, English JD, Meyer R. A cephalometric and tomographic evaluation of Herbst treatment in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:435-43.
• 38. Flores-Mir C. Ayeh A. Goswani A. and Charkhandeh S. Skeletal and dental changes in class II division 1 malocclusions treated with splint-type Herbst appliances. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2007;77:376-81.
• 39. 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;126:140-52.
• 40. Sidhu MS, Kharbanda OP, Sidhu SS. Cephalometric analysis of changes produced by a modified Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions. Br J Orthod 1995;22:1-12.
• 41. Ursi WJS, McNamara Junior J, Martins DR. Clinical alteration of a growing face: a cephalometric comparison of class II patients treated with cervical headgear, Frankel (FR-2) and Herbst appliances. Rev Dent Press Ortodon Ortop Maxilar 1999;4: 77-108.
• 42. Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:429-38.
• 43. El-Fateh T, Ruf S. Herbst treatment with mandibular cast splints-revisited. Angle Orthod 2011;81:820-7.
• 44. Barnett GA, Higgins DW, Major PW, Flores-Mir C. Immediate Skeletal and Dentoalveolar Effects of the Crown-or Banded Type Herbst Appliance on Class II division 1 Malocclusion: A Systematic Review. Angle Orthod 2008; 78:361-9.
• 45. Bock NC, Ruf S, Wiechmann D, Jilek T. Herbst plus Lingual versus Herbst plus Labial: a comparison of occlusal outcome and gingival health. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38:478-84.
• 46. Pancherz H, Bjerklin K. Mandibular incisor inclination, tooth irregularity, and gingival recessions after Herbst therapy: a 32-year follow-up study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146: 310-8.
• 47. Bock NC, Ruehl J, Ruf S. Prevalence, magnitude, and incidence of labial gingival recession with Herbst-multibracket appliance treatment: A retrospective cohort study. Angle Orthod 2019;89: 535-43.
• 48. Weltman B, Vig KW, Fields HW, Shanker S, Kaizar EE. Root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:462-76.
• 49. Nasiopoulos AT, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA, Kolokithas G, Ioannidou I. Premolar root changes following treatment with the banded herbst appliance. J Orofac Orthop 2006;67:261-71.
• 50. Kinzinger GS, Savvaidis S, Gross U, Gülden N, Ludwig B, Lisson J. Effects of Class II treatment with a banded Herbst appliance on root lengths in the posterior dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:465-9.
• 51. Schwartz JP, Raveli TB, Almeida KC, Schwartz-Filho HO, Raveli DB. Cone beam computed tomography study of apical root resorption induced by Herbst appliance. J Appl Oral Sci 2015;23:479-85.
• 52. Taha MA, Hammad SM. A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption between Herbst and Jumper twin block bite appliances. Egyptian Orthodontic Journal 2011; 39:15-28.
• 53. Voudouris JC, Woodside DG, Altuna G, Kuftinec MM, Angelopoulos G, Bourque P J. Condyle-fossa modifications and muscle interactions during Herbst treatment, Part 1. New technological methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:604-13.
• 54. Voudouris JC, Woodside DG, Altuna G, Angelopoulos G, Bourque PJ, Lacouture CY. Condyle-fossa modifications and muscle interactions during Herbst treatment, Part 2. Results and conclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:13-29.
• 55. Pancherz H, Salé H, Bjerklin K. Signs and symptoms of TMJ disorders in adults after adolescent Herbst therapy: a 6-year and 32-year radiographic and clinical follow-up study. Angle Orthod 2015;85(5):735-42.
• 56. Bondemark L, Holm AK, Hansen K, Axelsson S, Mohlin B, Brattstrom V, Paunlin G, Pietila T. Long-term stability of orthodontic treatment and patient satisfaction: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2007;77:181-91.
• 57. Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara Jr JA. Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115(4):429-38.
• 58. 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.
• 59. Jakobsone G, Latkauskiene D, McNamara JrJA. 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;14:27.
• 60. Pancherz H, Bjerklin K, Hashemi K. Late adult skeletofacial growth after adolescent Herbst therapy: a 32-year longitudinal follow-up study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147:19-28.
• 61. Pancherz H, Fischer S. Amount and Direction of Temporomandibular Joint Growth Changes in Herbst Treatment: A Cephalometric Long-term Investigation. Angle Orthod 2003; 73: 493-501.
• 62. Pancherz H. The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100: 220-33.
• 63. Pancherz H, Bjerklin K, Lindskog-Stokland B, Hansen K. Thirty-two-year follow-up study of Herbst therapy: a biometric dental cast analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:15-27.
• 64. 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;104:319-29.
• 65. Hansen K, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment in relation to normal growth development: a cephalometric study. Eur J Orthod, 1992;14: 285-95.
• 66. 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.
• 67. Latkauskiene D, Jakobsone G, McNamara JA. A prospective study on the clinical effectiveness of the stainless steel crown Herbst appliance. Prog Orthod 2012;13:100-108.
• 68. Bock N, Pancherz H. Herbst Treatment of Class II division 1 Malocclusions in Retrognathic and Prognathic Facial Types: A Cephalometric Long-term Retrospective Study. Angle Orthod 2006; 76:930-41.