Objective: To detect three-dimensionally the effects of using mini-implant anchorage with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD). Materials and Methods: The sample comprised 43 skeletal Class II females with deficient mandibles. They were randomly allocated into three groups: 16 patients (13.25 6 1.12 years) received FFRD alone (Forsus group), 15 subjects (13.07 6 1.41 years) received FFRD and miniimplants (FMI group), and 12 subjects (12.71 6 1.44 years) were in the untreated control group. Three-dimensional analyses of cone beam computed tomographic images were completed, and the data were statistically analyzed. Results: Class I relationship and overjet correction were achieved in 88% of the cases. None of the two treatment groups showed significant mandibular skeletal effects. In the FMI group, significant headgear effect, decrease in maxillary width, and increase in the lower facial height were noted. In the FMI group, retroclination of maxillary incisors and distalization of maxillary molars were significantly higher. Proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors were significantly greater in the Forsus group. Conclusions: FFRD resulted in Class II correction mainly through dentoalveolar effects and with minimal skeletal effects. Utilization of mini-implant anchorage effectively reduced the unfavorable proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors but did not produce additional skeletal effects. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:292-305.)

Objectives: To evaluate the use of direct miniplate anchorage in conjunction with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) in treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight females with skeletal Class II were randomly allocated to the Forsus plus miniplates (FMP) group (16 patients, age 12.5 ± 0.9 years), Forsus alone (FFRD; 16 patients, age 12.1 ± 0.9 years), or the untreated control group (16 subjects, age 12.1 ± 0.9 years). After leveling and alignment, miniplates were inserted in the mandibular symphysis in the FMP group. The FFRD was inserted directly on the miniplates in the FMP group and onto the mandibular archwires in the FFRD group. The appliances were removed after reaching an edge-to-edge incisor relationship. Results: Data from 46 subjects were analyzed. The effective mandibular length significantly increased in the FMP group only (4.05 ± 0.78). The mandibular incisors showed a significant proclination in the FFRD group (9.17 ± 2.42) and a nonsignificant retroclination in the FMP group (−1.49 ± 4.70). The failure rate of the miniplates was reported to be 13.3%. Conclusions: The use of miniplates with the FFRD was successful in increasing the effective mandibular length in Class II malocclusion subjects in the short term. The miniplate-anchored FFRD eliminated the unfavorable mandibular incisor proclination in contrast to the conventional FFRD.

The studies reviewed provide insufficient evidence to form a conclusion regarding the effects of the use of skeletal anchorage with FFA. The available weak evidence suggests that the use of skeletal anchorage with FFA has no superior skeletal effects but is able to reduce proclination of the lower incisors.

Objective: The aim of the systematic review is to evaluate the effects of gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) on alveolar bone quality and facial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). Search Methods: Electronic and manual search was done up to October 2017. Eligibility Criteria: Clinical and observational studies that compared GPP to control; patients without GPP evaluated either before or after the age for secondary bone graft (SBG). Data Collection and Analysis: Studies selection was done by 2 authors independently. Risk ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Results: Thirteen articles were included in the review. All studies were at high risk of bias. Poorer alveolar bone quality was found in the GPP group compared to the SBG group. The pooled data showed a statistically significant increase in the incidence of Bergland type III in the GPP group compared to SBG (risk ratio: 11.51, 95% CI: 3.39-35.15). As for facial growth, GPP group resulted in a more retruded maxillary position (as indicated by “Sella-Nasion-Subspinale” angle [SNA value]) compared to control group by −1.36 (CI: −4.21 to 1.49) and −1.66 (CI: −2.48 to −0.84) when evaluated at 5 and 10 years, respectively. The protocol for presurgical infant orthopedics used in conjunction with the GPP procedure might have affected the results of the alveolar bone and facial growth outcomes. Conclusions: Definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of GPP cannot be drawn. Very weak evidence indicated that GPP might not be an efficient method for alveolar bone reconstruction for patients with unilateral and bilateral CLP. Gingivoperiosteoplasty surgery could lead to maxillary growth inhibition in patients with CLP.

No abstract