Method: The sample consisted of 37 white patients, male and female, with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion, 17 treated with the pendulum, and 20 with a removable lower acrylic splint Herbst. Initial mean age for the Herbst group was 11.7 years, and 12.5 years for the pendulum group. For each of the 2 treatment groups, lateral cephalograms were analyzed before the start of treatment (T1) and after the second phase of treatment (T2). The comprehensive treatment time for the pendulum group and for the acrylic Herbst group were 3.7 years and 3.8 years, respectively. To assess treatment effects between the groups, a conventional cephalometric analysis was used together with Student t test for independent samples.
Result: There was no statistically significant difference in maxillary growth between the two treatment groups. The Herbst patients had greater mandibular growth than did the pendulum patients (P < .05). Upper molar distalization and lower incisor proclination was also greater in Herbst patients (P < .05). Vertical and profile changes were similar in both groups.
Conclusion: The two general approaches involved a substantial dentoalveolar component in the treatment of Class II malocclusion, but greater in the pendulum patients.