OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring (FNFS) and Jasper Jumper (JJ) in the correction of Class II division I malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our research was conducted on 48 adolescents, who had a normal or horizontal growth pattern and retrognathic mandible. The patients were divided into three equal groups randomly. First group was treated with FNFS, and the second group was treated with JJ appliances, whereas the third group was the control group. Lateral cephalograms and study models were obtained after the leveling phase and at time of the removal of the appliances. RESULTS: Cephalometric analysis revealed that both the appliances stimulated mandibular growth, increased the anterior face height because of the lower face, and elongated the posterior face height because of the growth of temporomandibular joint. Maxillary central incisors were extruded, retruded, and distally tipped. Contrarily, intrusion, protrusion, and labial tipping were observed in the mandibular central incisors. Distal movement and intrusion of the maxillary first molars and mesial movement and extrusion of the mandibular first molars were the other dental alterations. Overjet and overbite were decreased, and a Class I molar relationship and improvement in the profile were attained in both treatment groups. Cast model analysis showed expansion in the maxillary and mandibular dental arches. CONCLUSIONS: Both the appliances were effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusion and revealed nearly same alterations in the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue parameters.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring (FNFS) and Jasper Jumper (JJ) in the correction of Class II division I malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our research was conducted on 48 adolescents, who had a normal or horizontal growth pattern and retrognathic mandible. The patients were divided into three equal groups randomly. First group was treated with FNFS, and the second group was treated with JJ appliances, whereas the third group was the control group. Lateral cephalograms and study models were obtained after the leveling phase and at time of the removal of the appliances. RESULTS: Cephalometric analysis revealed that both the appliances stimulated mandibular growth, increased the anterior face height because of the lower face, and elongated the posterior face height because of the growth of temporomandibular joint. Maxillary central incisors were extruded, retruded, and distally tipped. Contrarily, intrusion, protrusion, and labial tipping were observed in the mandibular central incisors. Distal movement and intrusion of the maxillary first molars and mesial movement and extrusion of the mandibular first molars were the other dental alterations. Overjet and overbite were decreased, and a Class I molar relationship and improvement in the profile were attained in both treatment groups. Cast model analysis showed expansion in the maxillary and mandibular dental arches. CONCLUSIONS: Both the appliances were effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusion and revealed nearly same alterations in the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue parameters.
Authors: Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni; Douglas Edward Toll; Efisio Defraia; Tiziano Baccetti; Lorenzo Franchi Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2011-02-07 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Antonio Carlos Sakuno; Ana Paula Barbisan da Rosa; Fernando Akio Maeda; Tarcila Trivino; Paulo Eduardo Guedes Carvalho; Fernando César Torres Journal: J Oral Biol Craniofac Res Date: 2019-06-05