ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Oral Implications of Herbst Device Modification: A Case Report.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies analyse the effectiveness of the Herbst device in the treatment of dentoskeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion. This fixed device was devised by Emil Herbst for Class II treatment using a bite jumping, i.e., a device that holds the jaw in a forced anterior position. Comparison of the results obtained in numerous studies is difficult because they are often not comparable and not congruent due to a number of variables that prevent standardization.
methodsThe purpose of the present study is to report some clinical-level considerations that may be important in order to obtain more predictable therapeutic outcomes. The simplified design of the Herbst device offers better patient comfort and easier cleanability but may show some disadvantages, such as less anchorage.
resultsThe device was evaluated in conjunction with the multi-bracket phase that preceded Herbst therapy and concluded after the device was removed. The therapy was performed in the absence of skeletal anchorage.
conclusionsIn our opinion, standardization of therapy according to precise protocols may positively affect the therapeutic outcomes by achieving faster occlusal stabilization, more proper neuro-muscular balance, less stress on anchor units, and shorter treatment time.
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.