Comparison of Twin Block and Herbst Appliances in Treatment of Class II Malocclusion: a Systematic Review

In growing patients, it is possible to correct a second class skeletal mandibular retrusion with functional orthodontic appliances. We have viewed 1982-2016 PubMed articles to compare, in terms of compliance, timing, dental effects, and skeletal profilometric changes Twin block and Herbst appliances. The dental and skeletal effects are the same, but the Herbst unlike the Twin Block presents a retraction of the upper arch effect, a greater retraction of the upper first molar, a greater torque loss of the upper front area and a greater flaring of the lower incisors (on average 5 ° and 11 ,° respectively in the Twin Block and in the Herbst) .The Herbst treatment time (average of 9 months) is less than the Twin Block (average 12 months) .The most important difference is patient compliance as the Herbst is a fixed device in cui the efficiency and effectiveness is dependent operator while the Twin block is a removable device dependent compliance. Choosing the most effective orthodontic coverage depends on the treatment goals you want to Achieve but Surely patient compliance and the effect headgear Herbst are among the most important factors to consider in choosing orthodontic coverage blackberries in tune with our objectives treatment.