UNLABELLED: The aim was to compare the effects of Twin-block & Forsus (FRD) functional appliances in the correction of Angles Class II division 1 malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 25 patients who underwent treatment with twin block for the correction of class II div 1 were compared with 25 patients who underwent treatment with Forsus appliance. These were again compared with the pre follow up and post follow up lateral cephalograms of 25 patients who have not undergone any treatment during this period. All the 3 group patients were compared for skeletal, dental and soft tissue parameters. RESULTS: Cephalometric analysis revealed that both Twin-block & Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) appliances stimulated mandibular growth. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were found. Twin-block patients showed statistically very high significant (p < 0.001) increase in mandibular length (6.02 mm) whereas Forsus appliance patients showed significant (p < 0.05) increase in mandibular length (1.6 mm) when compared with control group (0.3 mm). No significant restriction of maxillary growth was found in either of the two experimental groups when compared to control group. Significant increase in lower anterior facial height & posterior facial height was observed in both experimental groups in relation to control group. Significant reduction of overjet and overbite was observed in both experimental groups. Class I molar relationship and improvement in the soft tissue profile were achieved in both treatment groups compared with control group. CONCLUSIONS: Both Twin Block and Forsus were effective in the treatment of Class II Div 1 malocclusion. Class II correction with Twin-block is more due to mandibular skeletal and dentoalveolar changes whereas in Forsus, it is more due to dentoalveolar changes and less skeletal changes.
UNLABELLED: The aim was to compare the effects of Twin-block & Forsus (FRD) functional appliances in the correction of Angles Class II division 1 malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 25 patients who underwent treatment with twin block for the correction of class II div 1 were compared with 25 patients who underwent treatment with Forsus appliance. These were again compared with the pre follow up and post follow up lateral cephalograms of 25 patients who have not undergone any treatment during this period. All the 3 group patients were compared for skeletal, dental and soft tissue parameters. RESULTS: Cephalometric analysis revealed that both Twin-block & Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) appliances stimulated mandibular growth. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were found. Twin-block patients showed statistically very high significant (p < 0.001) increase in mandibular length (6.02 mm) whereas Forsus appliance patients showed significant (p < 0.05) increase in mandibular length (1.6 mm) when compared with control group (0.3 mm). No significant restriction of maxillary growth was found in either of the two experimental groups when compared to control group. Significant increase in lower anterior facial height & posterior facial height was observed in both experimental groups in relation to control group. Significant reduction of overjet and overbite was observed in both experimental groups. Class I molar relationship and improvement in the soft tissue profile were achieved in both treatment groups compared with control group. CONCLUSIONS: Both Twin Block and Forsus were effective in the treatment of Class II Div 1 malocclusion. Class II correction with Twin-block is more due to mandibular skeletal and dentoalveolar changes whereas in Forsus, it is more due to dentoalveolar changes and less skeletal changes.