Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

NCT number NCT05597748
Other study ID # Pro00124682
Secondary ID
Status Recruiting
Phase N/A
First received
Last updated
Start date August 25, 2023
Est. completion date August 1, 2026

Study information

Verified date October 2023
Source University of Alberta
Contact Carlos Flores Mir, DSc
Phone 7804927409
Email cf1@ualberta.ca
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This study will collect data to try to assess which one of the two management options works better. The first option involves the use of the bite corrector first and then braces, while the second option involves the temporary addition of small support bone screws with the bite corrector later and then braces. Currently, it is not clearly known if there are important differences between the proposed management options. Such approaches are conventionally used in orthodontic practices. The information collected in this study will be used to compare the differences in the nature of the facial, teeth, and bone changes after the treatment. Questions about the experience while using the devices will be asked.


Description:

Purpose The present study will compare facial, skeletal, and dental changes among adolescents with mild to moderate Class II malocclusion using two Class II orthopedic orthodontic approaches. Patient-reported outcomes will also be assessed through validated questionnaires and qualitative interviews. Hypothesis Participants that use the modified Herbst approach do not showcase facial, dental, and skeletal changes that are different than those using the conventional Herbst approach. Justification One of the most common causes of a Class II malocclusion is a deficient mandibular projection (either due to reduced size or retruded position). Although in adults the only reasonable way to improve the mandibular projection is through surgical repositioning, in growing individuals an orthopedic alternative may significantly reduce the perceived need for this type of surgery later in life. Several craniofacial orthopedic appliances have been used to attempt an orthopedic correction of Class II malocclusion of a mandibular origin, aiming to possibly improve functional, muscular, skeletal, and dental disharmonies.1,2,3 A wide array of related publications exist that have been summarized through several systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis. The Herbst appliance is widely known for its relative effectiveness in correcting Class II malocclusions. It is most commonly used as a fixed appliance that repositions the jaw to a more anterior and downward position displacing the condyles away from the articular eminence.4,-8 This is thought to facilitate condylar bone apposition; hence, increasing mandibular size dimensions. Several papers have considered the efficiency of the Herbst appliance in Class II correction during early permanent dentition. But only one study evaluated changes produced by the Herbst appliance in mixed dentition patients and it concluded that the effects of the Herbst appliance were mainly dentoalveolar.5 Several different designs of the Herbst appliance have been reported in the literature.6-11 A modified Herbst approach by Manni has shown promising results. An increment in the mandibular chin projection of 5 mm has been reported. Due to the fact that the reported positive changes are so far only based on case reports and retrospective data12-24, a randomized controlled trial seems to be the next prudent step. Objectives Assess if the modified Herbst approach produces facial, dental, and skeletal changes that are different than those using the conventional Herbst approach. Assess if the use of the modified Herbst approach facilitates a treatment experience (overall quality of life, oral health-related quality of life, and described experience) that is different than the one with the conventional Herbst approach. Methods Each potential participant will undergo an orthodontic clinical screening to determine if they fill the inclusion criteria (mild to moderate Class II malocclusion in a growing individual - two distinct Class II malocclusion phenotypes - see eligibility criteria below). Eligible individuals will be approached with an opportunity to participate in the research study. After understanding the research purpose and possible side effects, and if they choose to participate, they will voluntarily sign the informed consent form. They will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. The allocation sequence will be done through randomization tables by a statistician and sealed envelopes generated. Once a willing participant is deemed to have fulfilled the inclusion criteria and provided informed consent the randomization will occur. For each Class II malocclusion type, two groups will be randomly generated. Group 1 - Class II type A malocclusion - proclination of upper incisors indicated. A hybrid Herbst appliance approach will be used (current available conventional treatment). The upper jaw component will be a maxillary expander secured on the first molar bands. The lower arch would have an uncemented lower acrylic full coverage splint-type. In between Herbst-type pistons will be used. For Type, A upper brackets will be initially bonded and upper incisors proclined until normal inclination values are attained. Group 2 - Class II type B malocclusion - proclination of upper incisors not indicated. A modified hybrid Herbst appliance approach (same hybrid Herbst appliance approach but with the addition of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in both arches) will be used (alternative treatment). In the upper arch, the TADs would be inserted in the paramedical palatal area. In the lower arch, they would be inserted buccally between the roots of the lower second premolar and the first permanent molar. Elastomeric chains will be used to link these TADs to the first molars in the upper arch and to a buccal bottom on the lower canines. For Type, A initially upper brackets will be initially bonded and upper incisors proclined until normal inclination values are attained. Both treatment arms will start as soon as the randomization has been done. Full orthodontic records (2D x-rays, photos, and dental casts) will be obtained for both groups at baseline and after this treatment phase is completed. Further comprehensive treatment will be offered to these patients as this initial management approach is not expected to fully align and level the teeth. This would be an additional elective option at an additional cost. Two validated quality-of-life tools will be used. The CPQ11-14 assesses oral health-related quality of life and the EuroQoL assesses the overall quality of life. These two tools will be collected before and after this management approach. Additionally, a qualitative approach will be used at the end of the trial participants to better understand the participant's journey through the process. Sample size A sample of 40 patients (8 patients per treatment group are needed but the total sample is set to 10 considering a 20% loss during follow-up) will be sought. This sample was based on alfa of 5% and a beta of 20%. A clinically significant difference of 4.9 mm in Pg to OLp and a variance of 12.25 was set as clinically meaningful based on the pilot retrospective study by Manni et al.16. n=f(a,b)*2SD2/Dif2 25 f(a,b)=7.85 (Table XIII page 22) 25 sd=12.25 Manni et al.16 Expected difference= 4.9 mm Pg to OLp Manni et al.16


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Recruiting
Enrollment 40
Est. completion date August 1, 2026
Est. primary completion date February 1, 2025
Accepts healthy volunteers Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Gender All
Age group 12 Years to 15 Years
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: - Class II skeletal malocclusion based on PgOLp more than 85 mm and A-OLp more than 75 mm. - Perceived potential improvement of facial convexity. - At least end-to-end bilateral molar relationship. - Early permanent dentition. - No congenitally missing teeth. Exclusion criteria: - Class II skeletal malocclusion based on PgOLp less than 85 mm and A-OLp less than 75 mm. - Only reasonable management option is surgery. - Less than an end-to-end bilateral molar relationship. - Mixed dentition dentition. - Congenitally missing teeth.

Study Design


Intervention

Device:
Modified Herbst Approach
A modified hybrid Herbst appliance approach (same hybrid Herbst appliance approach but with the addition of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in both arches) will be used (alternative treatment). In the upper arch, the TADs would be inserted in the paramedical palatal area. In the lower arch, they would be inserted buccally between the roots of the lower second premolar and the first permanent molar. Elastomeric chains will be used to link these TADs to the first molars in the upper arch and to a buccal bottom on the lower canines. Upper brackets will be initially bonded and upper incisors proclined until normal inclination values are attained.
Conventional Herbst Approach
A hybrid Herbst appliance approach will be used (current available conventional treatment). The upper jaw component will be a maxillary expander secured on the first molar bands. The lower arch would have an uncemented lower acrylic full-coverage splint-type. In between Herbst-type pistons will be used.

Locations

Country Name City State
Canada University of Alberta Edmonton Alberta

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
University of Alberta

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Canada, 

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary Skeletal chin prominence Assess if the modified Herbst approach produces a more prominent chin protrusion than the one produced by the conventional Herbst. The distance in mm between the skeletal chin and a perpendicular virtual reference line will be calculated. 1 year
Primary Lower incisor inclination Assess if the modified Herbst approach produces less incisor inclination than the conventional Herbst approach. The angulation in degrees between the lower incisor and the mandibular plane will be calculated. 1 year
Primary Overall quality of life Assess if the overall quality of life is different than the one with the conventional Herbst approach. The CPQ11-14 ISF questionnaire will be used to assess oral health-related quality of life. The range of possible values es between 0 and 32. Lower values implied better perceived QoL. 1 year
Primary Oral health-related quality of life Assess if the oral health-related quality of life is different than the one with the conventional Herbst approach. The EuroQoL questionnaire will be used to assess oral health-related quality of life. The index calculates a value between 0 and 1. A higher value implies better QoL. 1 year
Primary Soft tissue Chin prominence Assess if the modified Herbst approach produces a more prominent chin protrusion. The distance in mm between the lower lip and a perpendicular virtual reference line will be calculated 1 year
Secondary Maxillary lip prominence Assess if the modified Herbst approach produces a less prominent lip protrusion. The distance in mm between the upper lip and a perpendicular virtual reference line will be calculated. 1 year
Secondary Mandibular lip prominence Assess if the modified Herbst approach produces a more prominent lip protrusion. The distance in mm between the lower lip and a perpendicular virtual reference line will be calculated. 1 year
Secondary Upper incisor inclination Assess if the modified Herbst approach produces less incisor inclination than the conventional Herbst approach. The angulation in degrees between the upper incisor and the maxillary plane will be calculated. 1 year
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT05440526 - the Mini-plate Anchored Herbst Appliance Versus the Dentally Anchored Fixed Functional Appliance Phase 2/Phase 3
Completed NCT06024382 - The Effect of Low-level Laser Therapy on Functional Treatment of Skeletal Class II Patients N/A
Recruiting NCT05684510 - Treatment of Mild Class II Malocclusion in Adult Patients With Clear Aligners Versus Fixed Multibracket Therapy N/A
Completed NCT05265416 - Pain and Discomfort in Two Acceleration Methods of Canine Retraction N/A
Completed NCT02000557 - Photographic Analysis of Soft Tissue Facial Profile in Patients With Class II Malocclusion N/A
Completed NCT05592977 - Effect of Bilateral Distalization of Upper First Molars in a Group of Patients After Extraction of Maxillary Second Molars N/A
Completed NCT05227859 - Which is Better Piezosurgery or LLLT in Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement N/A
Completed NCT05555719 - Dentoskeletal Effects of Two Different Fixed Functional Appliances for Correction of Class II Malocclusion: A Comparative Clinical Study N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT06116500 - Effectiveness of Modified Functional Appliance With Expander N/A
Completed NCT06209086 - Effects of Skeletal Anchored Versus Incisal Capped Twin Block Appliance in Class II Malocclusion N/A
Completed NCT05466344 - the Condylar Response of Mini-plate Anchored Rigid Fixed Functional Appliance Versus Dentally Anchored Semi-rigid One Phase 2/Phase 3
Active, not recruiting NCT05166928 - Effect of Upper Third Molar Extraction on Distalization Carriere Motion Appliance :A Prospective Clinical Study N/A
Completed NCT05652244 - Evaluation of the Levels of Pain, Discomfort, and Functional Impairment With Two Techniques of Retraction N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT06308640 - Evaluation of Maxillary Molar Distalization With Two Bone Supported Protocols Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography N/A
Completed NCT05656898 - Evaluation of the Levels of Pain and Discomfort and Periodontal Status Between Two Acceleration Methods of Upper Anterior Teeth Retraction N/A
Completed NCT05647720 - Effect of Maxillary Third Molar Extraction vs. Non-extraction on Distalization of First Molars in a Group of Adolescent Patients N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT03863275 - Analysis of Muscle Activity With Myofunctional Devices, Using Surface Electromyography N/A
Completed NCT06209125 - Evaluation of Skeletal and Dental Effect of the New Hybrid Aesthetic Functional Appliance N/A
Completed NCT05418413 - The Use of an Esthetic Twin Block for Patients With Mandibular Retrusion N/A
Completed NCT05302076 - Clinical Effects of Electrical Stimulation on Speeding up Orthodontic Tooth Movement N/A