OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of PowerScope and Forsus in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 2-arm parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 28 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients indicated for treatment with fixed functional appliances were randomized and equally divided (n = 14) among PowerScope (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis; mean age 14.11 ± 1.3 years) and Forsus (3M Unitek Corp, Monrovia, Calif; mean age 15.5 ± 1.1 years) groups. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of PowerScope and Forsus were compared. The secondary outcomes were evaluation of patient comfort and operator convenience. Randomization was accomplished with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and concealment was achieved by sealed opaque envelopes. The participants and data collectors were all blinded to study group allocation. Data were analyzed for 26 patients, 13 in each group, as one patient from each group discontinued treatment. Statistical comparisons were carried out using Student's t-tests and chi square tests ( P ≤ .05). RESULTS: A significantly greater mesial mandibular movement and improvement in sagittal skeletal relation were found in the Forsus patients ( P ≤ .05). The forward movement of the mandibular molar and incisors were greater in the PowerScope patients (2.3 mm and 2.80 mm) than in the Forsus patients (1.9 mm and 2.38 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Both PowerScope and Forsus are effective in correcting Class II malocclusion. The percentage of dentoalveolar effects in correcting Class II malocclusion is more for PowerScope when compared with Forsus. Patient comfort was the same with both appliances. This trial was registered.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of PowerScope and Forsus in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 2-arm parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 28 Class II division 1 malocclusionpatients indicated for treatment with fixed functional appliances were randomized and equally divided (n = 14) among PowerScope (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis; mean age 14.11 ± 1.3 years) and Forsus (3M Unitek Corp, Monrovia, Calif; mean age 15.5 ± 1.1 years) groups. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of PowerScope and Forsus were compared. The secondary outcomes were evaluation of patient comfort and operator convenience. Randomization was accomplished with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and concealment was achieved by sealed opaque envelopes. The participants and data collectors were all blinded to study group allocation. Data were analyzed for 26 patients, 13 in each group, as one patient from each group discontinued treatment. Statistical comparisons were carried out using Student's t-tests and chi square tests ( P ≤ .05). RESULTS: A significantly greater mesial mandibular movement and improvement in sagittal skeletal relation were found in the Forsus patients ( P ≤ .05). The forward movement of the mandibular molar and incisors were greater in the PowerScope patients (2.3 mm and 2.80 mm) than in the Forsus patients (1.9 mm and 2.38 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Both PowerScope and Forsus are effective in correcting Class II malocclusion. The percentage of dentoalveolar effects in correcting Class II malocclusion is more for PowerScope when compared with Forsus. Patient comfort was the same with both appliances. This trial was registered.
Entities:
Keywords:
Class II malocclusion; Pitchfork analysis; PowerScope