Effects of the Herbst Appliance With Different Anchorages and Twin-Block Appliance in Class II Malocclusion

Malocclusion, Angle Class II Clinical Trial

— HASA  

Official title:

Effects of the Herbst Appliance With Skeletal Anchorage or Dental Anchorage, and Twin-Block Appliance in Class II Malocclusion: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT02411812
• Other study ID #: HASA
• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: August 2015
• Est. completion date: September 2025

Study information

• Verified date: October 2022
• Source: Rio de Janeiro State University
• Contact: Klaus B Lopes, PhD
• Phone: 55-21-99148-4446
• Email: klausbarretto[@]uol.com.br
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine if the Herbst appliance with indirect skeletal anchorage in mini-implants is capable of preventing excessive inclination of the lower incisors at the end of the treatment when compared to the Herbst appliance with dental anchorage and Twin-Block appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion and overjet ≥ 6 mm.

Description:

2a. Background

The prevalence of the Angle Class II malocclusion is high, comprising almost half of known orthodontic problems (Silva Filho et al., 1990; Proffit et al., 1998). The Class II malocclusion is frequently responsible for negative aesthetic of the facial profile. This can result in psychosocial problems, principally in the Angle Class II, division I malocclusion because of the pronounced projection of the anterior superior teeth. This projection has also been related to fracture and avulsion of the anterior superior teeth.

Different types of appliances had been developed for the treatment of the Angle Class II malocclusion. Among these, functional orthopedic appliances have been used because they can correct Class II malocclusion with better improvement in the growth of the mandible when compared to headgears, which also can correct the problem, but with better restriction of the growth of the maxilla (Tulloch et al., 1997).

The Herbst appliance is a fixed functional orthopedic appliance that is often used because of its non-compliance-nature and the positive results achieved. Emil Herbst created the Herbst appliance in the 1910s (Pancherz; Ruf, 2008), but it was forgotten for decades. Only in the 1970s, Pancherz began a study of the Herbst appliance, and reported the positive results obtained in treatment of the Class II, division I malocclusion (Pancherz, 1979). Several subsequent studies of the Herbst appliance provided new scientific evidence of its benefits.

Nowadays, the Herbst appliance is often used in the treatment of Class II malocclusions, because of its efficiency (Bremen, Pancherz, 2008) and also because of the positive effects in orthodontic and orthopedic correction (Franchi et al., 1999). However, some investigators have stated that the correction of a Class II malocclusion is a result of anchorage loss, and could be responsible for negative effects on the lower incisors such as protrusion and gingival recession (Pancherz, 1979; Pancherz; Hansen, 1986; Pancherz; Hansen, 1988; Schütz et al., 2002; Vigorito; Yared et al., 2006; Dominguez, 2007).

Some attempts have been made to reduce the negative effects on lower incisors caused by the Herbst appliance, such as increasing the number of teeth in the mandibular anchorage, using soft-tissue anchorage, splints, and cast splints anchorage (Weschler et al., 2005; El-Fateh et al., 2011). However, these attempts were unsuccessful.

With the intention of solving these problems, a mini-implant prototype was developed for Herbst appliance anchorage (Barretto-Lopes, 2004). Mini-implants and implants have been used as anchors in orthodontics, for different purposes in different locations (Kanomi, 1997; Deguchi et al., 2003; Miyawaki et al., 2003). Some investigators have suggested the use of mini-implants as orthopedic anchors in animals (Smalley et al., 1988; De Pauw et al., 1999) and in the treatment of Class III malocclusions with retrusive maxillae in humans (Enacar et al., 2003, DeClerck et al., 2010; Heyman et al., 2010). However, there is little information about the use of mini-implants as an orthopedic anchor in the treatment of Class II malocclusions.

Therefore, a first in vitro study was developed to test the flexural resistance of the mini-implant prototypes developed for Herbst appliance anchorage (Barretto-Lopes, 2010, 2010). Subsequently, a question arose with respect to the resistance strength of these mini-implant prototypes when inserted in the bone, and a second ex vivo study was designed to evaluate if the mini-implant prototypes were capable of withstanding orthopedic forces in Minipigs br 1, and to compare the prototype resistance between the sites of insertion. The results showed that the mini-implant prototypes inserted in bone were capable of withstanding orthopedic forces (20.55 kgf for the mandible and 13.86 kgf for the maxilla), and the anterior region of the mandible could withstand statistically significant higher forces than the posterior region of the maxilla (Barretto-Lopes et al., 2012).

The next step was to test the Herbst with skeletal anchorage in humans and a pilot study was performed in patients to test the Herbst appliance with direct anchorage in mini-implants. However, the mini-implants presented mobility in the three cases tested and the trial was suspended.

Probably the direct load in mini-implants would be the reason of the system failure and a second pilot study in humans was carried out using the Herbst appliance with indirect anchorage in mini-implants. This system proved to be stable.

Thus, an in vivo study is necessary to evaluate the effect of the Herbst appliance with indirect anchorage in mini-implants on the lower incisors at the end of treatment compared to the Herbst appliance with dentoalveolar anchorage. Secondarily, this study could evaluate other dental effects and skeletal effects in the maxilla and mandible, resulting from the use of two types of anchoring.

2b. Objectives

Primary objective To determine if the Herbst appliance with indirect skeletal anchorage in mini-implants is capable of preventing excessive inclination of the lower incisors at the end of the treatment when compared to Herbst appliance with dental anchorage and Twin-Block appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion.

Secondary objectives To evaluate the changes occurred on mandible, maxilla, relationship between maxilla and mandible, lower molar and upper molar at the end of the treatment with the Herbst appliance with skeletal and dental anchorage, and Twin-Block appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion.

3-12. Methods

3a. Study design

According to the norms of the CONSORT STATEMENT (Moher et al., 2010), this study will be clinical with intervention, in which the allocation of the subjects will be randomized (block randomization). This study will be parallel, stratified by gender, with blinding for the outcome evaluators. The primary purpose of this study will be treatment.

4b. Participants - Settings and locations where the data are collected

The treatment will be performed in the Orthodontics Clinic of Rio de Janeiro State University. This public university serves a predominantly low-income population located in the Vila Isabel neighborhood in northern Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. The estimated population size is 81,858 habitants (IBGE - CENSO 2000). Data will be collected from April 2015 through August 2016.

5. Interventions

Three groups will receive treatment. Group 1 will be treated with the Herbst appliance with dental anchorage for 12 months. Group 2 will be treated with the Herbst appliance with skeletal anchorage in mini-implants for 12 months. Group 3 will be treated with Twin-Block appliances.

7a. Sample size

The open source software developed by Harvard University (http://hedwig.mgh.harvard.edu/sample_size/js/js_parallel_quant.html) was used for the sample size calculation. The main outcome measure was the difference between lower incisor proclination before and after treatment. Standard deviation of 1.31 (Martin, Pancherz, 2009) with a two-tailed curve was considered. Difference in means of 2 mm was used as minimal detectable difference. This value was based on a question answered by Professors and Post graduation students who reported a reduction of 2 mm as clinically significant. The significance level will be ≤ 5% and the power of the study will be 80%.

Therefore, 57 subjects will be needed, with 19 subjects in each group. An Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed to deal with dropouts and multiple imputation will be used to deal with missing data. The treatment time will be, approximately, 12 months.

7b. Interim analysis and stopping guidelines

In the group with indirect skeletal anchorage, in case of mobility in the mini-implants in any subject, the load will be removed for about one month. After that, the load will be restored. If the mobility persists, the mini-implant will be removed and reinserted in another site. If mobility occurs again, this subject will be reallocated to the group with dental anchorage. The same procedure will be followed in case of failure of the mini-implant.

8. Randomization

8a. Sequence generation

The randomization of the clinical research will be done with a randomized list, using the first generator from the site www.randomization.com (Pandis et al., 2011).

8b. Type

The type of randomization will be block randomization. In this approach, after the selection of the subjects according to the eligibility criteria, the sample will be separated into 10 blocks with 6 subjects in each.

9. Allocation and concealment mechanism

The sequence of allocation will be concealed in sequential opaque envelopes numbered from 1 to 60, with the treatment modality.

10. Implementation

Before the beginning of the research, the secretary of the Department of Orthodontics of the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro will be responsible for the implementation of the randomization (generation and storage of the randomized list, allocation concealment and treatment assignment). The subjects will write their names on the numbered envelopes, and will open the envelopes to learn the treatment for which they were selected. After that, the envelopes will be closed with the type of treatment selected for storage of the information.

11. Blinding

Blinding will be carried out only for the data analysis because the researchers, participants and subjects will know the treatment modality. Therefore, a person who does not know in which group a subject was treated will analyze the data.

12. Statistical methods

For the primary and secondary outcome measures, the data analysis will be performed using SPSS statistical software package (version 12.0, Chicago). Means, standard deviations, and ranges of the dental and skeletal measures will be calculated for the Herbst appliance with dental anchorage and for the Herbst appliance with indirect skeletal anchorage. Statistical differences will be assessed using analysis of variance. The Wilcoxon's test will be used to assess dental and skeletal differences between the Herbst with dental anchorage and Herbst with indirect skeletal anchorage. Measurements will be repeated after 1 week by an examiner, and intraexaminer correlation coefficients (ICC) will be used to evaluate the reliability of repeated measures. A 1-sample test will be performed on duplicate measurements to test for systematic errors.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 60
• Est. completion date: September 2025
• Est. primary completion date: August 2025
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 10 Years to 14 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Teenagers aged from 10 to 14 years old (both genders)

• Parental permission with a signed consent form

• Referral from the Orthodontics Clinic of the State of Rio de Janeiro University or private clinics

• Presenting Class II, Division 1 malocclusion with convex profile and minimum overjet of 6 mm in permanent dentition.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Missing teeth.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Malocclusion
• Malocclusion, Angle Class II

Intervention

Device:
• Herbst appliance with skeletal anchorage
Group treated with the Herbst appliance with indirect skeletal anchorage in mini-implants.
• Herbst appliance with dental anchorage
Group treated with the conventional Herbst appliance with dental anchorage.
• Twin-Block appliance
Group treated with Twin-Block appliance

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Brazil	Rio de Janeiro State University	Rio de Janeiro

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Klaus Barretto-Lopes

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Brazil, 

References & Publications (25)

Allais D, Melsen B. Does labial movement of lower incisors influence the level of the gingival margin? A case-control study of adult orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod. 2003 Aug;25(4):343-52. — View Citation

Artun J, Krogstad O. Periodontal status of mandibular incisors following excessive proclination. A study in adults with surgically treated mandibular prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987 Mar;91(3):225-32. — View Citation

De Clerck H, Cevidanes L, Baccetti T. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Nov;138(5):577-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.037. — View Citation

De Pauw GA, Dermaut L, De Bruyn H, Johansson C. Stability of implants as anchorage for orthopedic traction. Angle Orthod. 1999 Oct;69(5):401-7. — View Citation

Deguchi T, Takano-Yamamoto T, Kanomi R, Hartsfield JK Jr, Roberts WE, Garetto LP. The use of small titanium screws for orthodontic anchorage. J Dent Res. 2003 May;82(5):377-81. — View Citation

El-Fateh T, Ruf S. Herbst treatment with mandibular cast splints--revisited. Angle Orthod. 2011 Sep;81(5):820-7. doi: 10.2319/101010-591.1. Epub 2011 Mar 28. — View Citation

Enacar A, Giray B, Pehlivanoglu M, Iplikcioglu H. Facemask therapy with rigid anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and severe oligodontia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 May;123(5):571-7. — View Citation

Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Apr;115(4):429-38. — View Citation

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 Jul;112(1):92-103. — View Citation

Heymann GC, Cevidanes L, Cornelis M, De Clerck HJ, Tulloch JF. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary protraction with intermaxillary elastics to miniplates. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Feb;137(2):274-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.009. — View Citation

Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1997 Nov;31(11):763-7. — View Citation

Lopes KB, Dominguez GC, Biasi C, Rossi JL. Flexural strength of mini-implants developed for Herbst appliance skeletal anchorage. A study in Minipigs br1 cadavers. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013 Nov-Dec;18(6):124-9. — View Citation

Martin J, Pancherz H. Mandibular incisor position changes in relation to amount of bite jumping during Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment: a radiographic-cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jul;136(1):44-51. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.07.027. — View Citation

Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, Mishima K, Sugahara T, Takano-Yamamoto T. Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Oct;124(4):373-8. — View Citation

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG; Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Group. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):e1-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004. Epub 2010 Mar 25. Erratum in: J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):351. — View Citation

Pancherz H, Hansen K. Mandibular anchorage in Herbst treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1988 May;10(2):149-64. — View Citation

Pancherz H, Hansen K. Occlusal changes during and after Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Eur J Orthod. 1986 Nov;8(4):215-28. — View Citation

Pancherz H. The mandibular plane angle in activator treatment. Angle Orthod. 1979 Jan;49(1):11-20. — View Citation

Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Randomization in clinical trials in orthodontics: its significance in research design and methods to achieve it. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Dec;33(6):684-90. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq141. Epub 2011 Feb 14. — View Citation

Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Moray LJ. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998;13(2):97-106. — View Citation

Ruf S, Hansen K, Pancherz H. Does orthodontic proclination of lower incisors in children and adolescents cause gingival recession? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Jul;114(1):100-6. — View Citation

Smalley WM, Shapiro PA, Hohl TH, Kokich VG, Brånemark PI. Osseointegrated titanium implants for maxillofacial protraction in monkeys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Oct;94(4):285-95. — View Citation

Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Koch G, Proffit WR. The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Apr;111(4):391-400. — View Citation

Weschler D, Pancherz H. Efficiency of three mandibular anchorage forms in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Angle Orthod. 2005 Jan;75(1):23-7. — View Citation

Yared KF, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jul;130(1):6.e1-8. — View Citation

* Note: There are 25 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Lower incisors position changes as measured by tomographic superimposition of the mandible.	Comparison in lower incisors position between the two groups at the end of the treatment.	12 months
Secondary	Morphological mandible changes as measured by tomographic superimposition of the cranial base.	Comparison between the changes of the mandible in the two groups at the end of the treatment.	12 months
Secondary	Maxilla changes as measured by tomographic superimposition of the cranial base.	Comparison between the changes of the maxilla in the two groups at the end of the treatment.	12 months
Secondary	Changes in relationship between maxilla and mandible as measured by tomographic superimposition of the cranial base.	Comparison between the changes of the relationship between the maxilla and the mandible in the two groups at the end of the treatment.	12 months
Secondary	Lower molar position changes as measured by tomographic superimposition of the mandible.	Comparison between the changes of the lower molar in the three groups at the end of the treatment.	12 months
Secondary	Upper molar position changes as measured by tomographic superimposition of the maxilla.	Comparison between the changes of the upper molar in the three groups at the end of the treatment.	12 months
Secondary	Facial changes as measured by tomographic superimposition of the face	Comparison between the facial changes in the three groups.	12 months