OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD), supported with bimaxillary splints, in treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 46 skeletal Class II females who received either conventional Forsus alone (FFRD group) (15 patients, 12.54 ± 0.90 years), FFRD and bimaxillary splints (splint-FFRD group) (15 patients, 12.29 ± 0.82 years), or were untreated controls (16 subjects, 12.1 ± 0.9 years) were retrieved from previous clinical trials. FFRD was inserted onto the mandibular archwire in the FFRD group after leveling and alignment with multibracket appliances. In the splint-FFRD group, Forsus was inserted between fixed maxillary and mandibular splints. Treatment continued until reaching an edge-to-edge incisor relationship. RESULTS: Both treatment groups failed to induce significant mandibular skeletal effects compared to the normal growth exhibited by untreated controls. The splint-FFRD group showed significant reduction of SNA (-0.88° ± 0.51°) and ANB (-1.36° ± 0.87°). The mandibular incisors showed significant proclination in the FFRD (9.17° ± 2.42°) and splint-FFRD groups (7.06° ± 3.34°). CONCLUSIONS: The newly proposed splint-supported FFRD was equally effective as the conventional FFRD in treatment of Class II malocclusion with dento-alveolar changes and additional maxillary restricting effect. It has an additional advantage of immediate initiation of the Class II correction.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD), supported with bimaxillary splints, in treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 46 skeletal Class II females who received either conventional Forsus alone (FFRD group) (15 patients, 12.54 ± 0.90 years), FFRD and bimaxillary splints (splint-FFRD group) (15 patients, 12.29 ± 0.82 years), or were untreated controls (16 subjects, 12.1 ± 0.9 years) were retrieved from previous clinical trials. FFRD was inserted onto the mandibular archwire in the FFRD group after leveling and alignment with multibracket appliances. In the splint-FFRD group, Forsus was inserted between fixed maxillary and mandibular splints. Treatment continued until reaching an edge-to-edge incisor relationship. RESULTS: Both treatment groups failed to induce significant mandibular skeletal effects compared to the normal growth exhibited by untreated controls. The splint-FFRD group showed significant reduction of SNA (-0.88° ± 0.51°) and ANB (-1.36° ± 0.87°). The mandibular incisors showed significant proclination in the FFRD (9.17° ± 2.42°) and splint-FFRD groups (7.06° ± 3.34°). CONCLUSIONS: The newly proposed splint-supported FFRD was equally effective as the conventional FFRD in treatment of Class II malocclusion with dento-alveolar changes and additional maxillary restricting effect. It has an additional advantage of immediate initiation of the Class II correction.
Authors: Carlos Flores-Mir; Gregory Barnett; Duncan W Higgins; Giseon Heo; Paul W Major Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.650
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
Authors: Sherif A Elkordy; Mona M Salah Fayed; Amr M Abouelezz; Khaled H Attia Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Giorgio Cacciatore; Lisa Alvetro; Efisio Defraia; Luis Tomas Huanc Ghislanzoni; Lorenzo Franchi Journal: Korean J Orthod Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 1.372