Retrospective comparison of dental and skeletal effects in the treatment of Class II malocclusion between Herbst and Xbow appliances.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this research was to compare dentoskeletal changes produced by Herbst and Xbow appliances in late mixed/early permanent dentition patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion to an untreated control group. METHODS: The retrospective cohort consisted of 41 patients treated with the Herbst appliance on average for 14 months (mean age of 11.3 years), 41 patients treated with Xbow appliance on average for 14 months (mean age of 11.11 years), and an untreated control sample of 25 patients followed on average for 21 months (mean age of 11.9 years). All patients had Class II Division 1 malocclusion characteristics. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after phase 1 treatment/follow-up. Data were analyzed by an analysis of variance followed by Tukey post-hoc tests. RESULTS: Although there was a high equivalence among the groups in the pretreatment cephalometric values, 4 variables showed differences (U6-FHp, L6-FHp, LAFH, and PP-U1). When comparing the mean changes (before and after phase 1 treatment/follow-up), incisor mandibular plane angle (IMPA), Wits appraisal, L6-FHp, Co-Pog, and PP-U1 measurements showed statistically significant differences. In addition, more relative mesial movement of the mandibular molars (an additional 2.4 mm) and a larger increase in mandibular length (an additional 3.2 mm) was noted for the Herbst group. CONCLUSIONS: Class II correction using Herbst and Xbow occurred in both groups through improvement in the maxillomandibular relationship and labial inclination of the mandibular incisors, as well as a relatively increased mesialization of the mandibular molars. Although both appliances improve occlusal features, the portrayed changes were not always similar. Herbst seems to produce more mandibular size increase over a similar treatment period.

Patients' preferences regarding age, sex, and attire of orthodontists.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated whether patients in different age groups are influenced by the age, sex, and attire of an orthodontist. METHODS: The opinions of 360 patients regarding 4 orthodontists and 3 types of attire (from photos) were investigated using a questionnaire. Patients were classified as children (8-11 years; n = 120; group 1), adolescents (12-17 years; n = 120; group 2), and young adults (18-25 years; n = 120; group 3). The chi-square test was used to evaluate age- and sex-based preferences for orthodontists and attire types, and a statistical test of proportion (significance level, 5%) was used for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Young female orthodontists were preferred (41.1%). A white coat was the preferred attire (48.1%), followed by social clothing (31.7%) and a thematic pediatric coat (19.7%). Groups 1 and 2 preferred a young female orthodontist, whereas group 3 had no apparent age and sex preferences. Regarding attire, group 1 preferred social clothing, whereas groups 2 and 3 preferred a white coat. CONCLUSIONS: Patients of all ages consider appearance to be an important factor when choosing an orthodontist. The participants largely preferred younger professionals who dressed in white coats, because this type of attire was considered clean and hygienic.