The purpose of this study was to examine the results of treatment of Class II malocclusions by using two different designs of the Herbst appliance. Cephalometric records from lateral headplates of 19 consecutively treated Class II cases were evaluated. The headplates were taken before and after the treatment stage in which the Herbst appliance was used. The patients were divided into two groups: the first group, normohypodivergent, was treated with the Herbst appliance attached to bands; the second group, hyperdivergent, was treated with the Herbst appliance attached to acrylic splints in which a high-pull headgear was also used. The results were compared between these groups and with a control group age-matched from Bolton standards to match the changes in the Herbst samples against what might be expected in case of normal growth during similar periods of time. The results of the investigation revealed the following: (1) 9 months of treatment resulted in Class I dental arch relationships in all 19 cases; (2) the Herbst appliance attached to bands did not significantly modify the vertical growth pattern of the normohypodivergent patients; and (3) in hyperdivergent patients, the use of a Herbst appliance attached to acrylic splints in conjunction with the use of a high-pull headgear allowed a better control of the vertical dimension, as assessed by the cephalometric parameters (FA, FMA, Go-Gn-SN). The clinician should be aware of the different dentofacial changes induced in the vertical plane by different designs of the Herbst appliance to better program treatment strategy.