Changes in the upper airway, hyoid bone and craniofacial morphology between patients treated with headgear activator and Herbst appliance: A retrospective study on lateral cephalometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The present study compared the treatment changes in the upper airway, hyoid bone position and craniofacial morphology between two groups of children with skeletal class II malocclusion treated with the headgear activator (HGA) and Herbst appliance (Herbst). Setting and sample population Orthodontic population from the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Hong Kong. Methods Thirty‐four skeletal class II patients treated with the HGA (17 patients, mean age 10.6 ± 1.5 years) and the Herbst (17 patients, mean age 11.0 ± 1.4 years) were matched for sex, age, overjet, skeletal class and mandibular divergence. The patients received lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCRs) at the beginning of treatment (T 1 ), after treatment (T 2 ) and at follow‐up (T 3 ). In the HGA group, patients underwent LCRs 7 months before the beginning of treatment (T 0 ), which were used as growth reference for intra‐group comparison. Paired Student's t tests were used for intra‐ and inter‐group comparisons ( α = .05). Results Treatment changes (T 2 ‐T 1 ) did not differ significantly between the groups. However, at follow‐up (T 3 ‐T 1 ) the Herbst group showed a smaller increase than the HGA group in the vertical position of the hyoid bone relative to the Frankfort plane ( P = .013) and mandibular plane ( P = .013). Conclusions There were no significant differences in the upper airway, hyoid bone position and craniofacial morphology between the groups at the end of treatment. However, the Herbst may provide better long‐term control of the vertical position of the hyoid bone than the HGA in children with skeletal class II malocclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".