OBJECTIVE: To compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the miniplate anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) and the conventional Forsus FRD in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out with 30 patients (10 girls, 20 boys). In the MA-Forsus group, 15 patients (2 girls, 13 boys) were treated with a miniplate anchored Forsus FRD for 9.40 ± 2.25 months. In the C-Forsus group, 15 patients (8 girls, 7 boys) were treated with a conventional Forsus FRD for 9.46 ± 0.81 months. A total of 16 measurements were calculated and statistically analyzed to find intragroup and intergroup differences. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in IMPA, SN/Occ, SN/GoGn, overjet, overbite, and Li-S measurements (P < .05). In the C-Forsus group, a substantial amount of lower incisor protrusion was observed, whereas retrusion was found in the MA-Forsus group (P < .001). The mandible rotated backward in the MA-Forsus group, whereas it remained unchanged in the C-Forsus group (P < .05). Reductions in overjet (P < .001) and overbite were greater in the C-Forsus group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Stimulation of mandibular growth and inhibition of maxillary growth were achieved in both treatment groups. In the C-Forsus group, a substantial amount of lower incisor protrusion was observed, whereas retrusion of lower incisors was found in the MA-Forsus group. The MA-Forsus group was found to be more advantageous as it had no dentoalveolar side effects on mandibular dentition.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the miniplate anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) and the conventional Forsus FRD in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out with 30 patients (10 girls, 20 boys). In the MA-Forsus group, 15 patients (2 girls, 13 boys) were treated with a miniplate anchored Forsus FRD for 9.40 ± 2.25 months. In the C-Forsus group, 15 patients (8 girls, 7 boys) were treated with a conventional Forsus FRD for 9.46 ± 0.81 months. A total of 16 measurements were calculated and statistically analyzed to find intragroup and intergroup differences. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in IMPA, SN/Occ, SN/GoGn, overjet, overbite, and Li-S measurements (P < .05). In the C-Forsus group, a substantial amount of lower incisor protrusion was observed, whereas retrusion was found in the MA-Forsus group (P < .001). The mandible rotated backward in the MA-Forsus group, whereas it remained unchanged in the C-Forsus group (P < .05). Reductions in overjet (P < .001) and overbite were greater in the C-Forsus group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Stimulation of mandibular growth and inhibition of maxillary growth were achieved in both treatment groups. In the C-Forsus group, a substantial amount of lower incisor protrusion was observed, whereas retrusion of lower incisors was found in the MA-Forsus group. The MA-Forsus group was found to be more advantageous as it had no dentoalveolar side effects on mandibular dentition.
Entities:
Keywords:
Class II malocclusion; Fixed functional appliances; Forsus FRD; Miniplates; TAD
Authors: Gero Stefan Michael Kinzinger; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Linda Frye; Ulrich Gross; Jan Hourfar Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Sherif A Elkordy; Amr M Abouelezz; Mona M S Fayed; Mai H Aboulfotouh; Yehya A Mostafa Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2018-12-28 Impact factor: 2.079