Can we grow mandibles with bone-anchored plates for class 2 correction ? 6 MINUTE SUMMARY

Play episode
Hosted by
Farooq Ahmed

Can we grow mandibles with bone-anchored plates for class 2 correction ? 6 MINUTE SUMMARY 

Click here for the video podcast

Join me for a summary exploring an innovation of the use of bone-anchored plates in class 2 correction. This was a clinically novel idea presented by Hugo De Clerck, who has been an innovator in the use of bone-anchored plates and has published seminal papers on the topic for class 3 treatment.


Hugo explores the use of bone-anchored plates in the mandible, combined with a Herbst appliance. He presents his data of 90 patients treated in Brussels by his research team.



  1. Customised bone anchored plates in lower anterior mandible – digitally designed per patient with surgical guide

  2. Transmucosal between lower canine and 1st premolar

  3. Herbst: modified to attach from upper 1st molar to the lower bone anchored plates

  4. Procline upper incisors prior to fitting Bone anchored-Herbst

  5. Expansion of the upper arch

  6. 2-3 modifications to Herbst piston to lengthen during treatment

  7. Duration 10 months


  • Growth of the mandibular body: mainly, bone modelling. Average growth 5-7mm, whereas conventional herbst 2-2.5mm of chin projection. New growth of bone as ramus moves backwards, resulting in lengthening of the mandible

  • Force generation:  in similar to the conventional functional appliance, with contraction of medial and lateral pterygoid and stretching of the suprahyoid and temporalis muscle

  • Lower incisor proclination: No lower incisor proclination: There is a distal force on the mandibular dentition instead of a forward force from conventional functional appliances, due to the appliance attaching to the mandibular body, not the dentition

  • Condylar displacement: Longer duration, of up to 10 months which results in stimulation of growth of the body of the mandible, conventionally this stops with a herbst as the lower incisors procaine, resulting in only 2 months of condylar displacement and therefore less stimulation of growth

  • Glenoid fossa remodelling. The glenoid fossa remodelled in a forwards direction, however it was small and unpredictable, with some posterior remodelling

  • Rotation of mandible – similar to the conventional functional appliance, a posterior rotation reduces the effects, anterior rotation enhances, for every 1 degree 1.1mm increase projection. Achieve via expansion and removable appliance

  • Upper molar distalisation: Hugo saw this as unfafourable and advised lengthening the herbst piston to reduce upper molar distalisation, therefore maximising mandibular lengthening



  • Age 13-15

  • Not possible with miniscrews, due to the quantity of force

  • Breakages of Herbst still occur

  • Is growth maintained long term – unable to state

  • No control as requirement for cbct of untreated patients.




Contents: Farooq Ahmed

Edited and produced: Farooq Ahmed



Join the discussion

More from this show

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Never miss an episode or blog!

Subscribe now