ArticleHead & face medicine2021
The Herbst appliance and its modifications - prevalence and individuality.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dentoskeletal effects of the cast-splint Herbst, twin-block, and twin-force bite corrector devices used to correct class II malocclusion : Three-year follow-up.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026Observational
- Herbst and Twin Block appliances in Class II malocclusion management for children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Oral Implications of Herbst Device Modification: A Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Long-term evaluation (10 years) of the outcomes of Herbst functional appliance in pharyngeal dimensions and hyoid bone position.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Facial Aesthetic Changes in Growing Class II Patients Treated with Herbst or Elastodontics: A Retrospective Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Influence of the force magnitude of fixed functional appliances for class II subdivision 1 treatment-a cephalometric study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the use of modified, cast splint Herbst appliances for the treatment of skeletal class II as an alternative to surgical bite correction over a period of five years. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe patient cases all originate from the patients of the Department of Orthodontics at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany and the orthodontic practice Dres. Zöller, Kaiserslautern, Germany. Inclusion criteria were orthodontic treatment with the Herbst appliance and its modifications. The type of modification, number and frequency of the different modifications were determined on the basis of patient files, X-ray documents, photos and models.
resultsOf a total of 2881 new admissions over a period of five years, 1751 patients came from the Department of Orthodontics at the University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and 1130 from the orthodontic practice in Kaiserslautern. A total of 336 patients were treated with a Herbst appliance during the period mentioned. 14 (13%) of the cases from the Herbst patient collective of the University Medical Center and 45 (19%) of the cases from the orthodontic practice were classified as modifications. The following modifications could be determined in descending order: University Medical Center Mainz: Herbst for anchorage during space closure (65%) > distalization (14%) ≥ bar construction as a space maintainer (14%) > Herbst applicance for anchoring for the adjustment of impacted teeth (7%); orthodontic practice Kaiserslautern: Herbst appliance with quadhelix in the maxilla (42%) > distalization (27%) > space closure (15%) > bar construction as a space maintainer (9%) > adjustment of impacted teeth (7%), multiple modifications occurred at 11%. The combination of quadhelix and Herbst appliance as well as multiple modifications have not yet been used in the University Medical Center Mainz. As an alternative to dysgnathia surgery, 23 adult patients (> 18 years) from the University Medical Center and 22 from the orthodontic practice were treated with a Herbst appliance.
conclusionNearly 12% of Herbst appliances are used in everyday orthodontic practice and almost 18% of these are used with modification(s). The high anchoring quality and force-effect geometry of the Herbst appliance is suitable for combining and treating various other treatment tasks in addition to the classical treatment task of class II therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.