Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) as a compliance-free alternative to Class II elastics. Materials and Methods: A sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction FRD patients (12.6 years of age) were matched with a sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction Class II elastics patients (12.2 years of age) based on four pretreatment variables (ANB, L1-GoMe, SN-GoMe, and treatment duration). Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed using the pitchfork analysis and a vertical cephalometric analysis. t-Tests were used to evaluate group differences. Group differences were evaluated using t-tests. Results:No statistically significant differences were found in the treatment changes between the groups. There was a general trend for mesial movement of the maxilla, mandible, and dentition during treatment for both groups. The mandibular skeletal advancement and dental movements were greater than those in the maxilla, which accounted for the Class II correction. Lower incisor proclination was evident in both groups. Vertically, the maxillary and mandibular molars erupted during treatment in both groups, while lower incisors proclined. With the exception of lower molar mesial movements and total molar correction, which were significantly (P Ͻ .05) greater in the Forsus group, there were no statistically significant group differences in the treatment changes. Conclusions:The Forsus FRD is an acceptable substitute for Class II elastics for noncompliant patients.

Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients

“…The mandibular first molars also showed a significant amount of mesial movement (1.5 mm) and extrusion (2.2 mm). These outcomes are similar to those reported by Jones et al 8 for both the FRD and Class II elastics.…”

“…This effect has been reported previously for the Herbst appliance in combination with fixed appliances at puberty, 22 for the FRD without controls, 8 and for the Jasper Jumper appliance. 5 The skeletal maxillary effect was reflected also by a modest, though significant, improvement in the sagittal position of the maxillary soft tissues.…”

“…The FRD attaches at the maxillary first molar and onto the mandibular archwire, distal to either the canine or first premolar bracket (the latter option making the appliance less visible and more comfortable). The clinical application of the FRD was described by Vogt 7 in 2006 and was evaluated in a sample of 34 Class II patients (in comparison with a group treated with fixed appliances and Class II elastics) by Jones et al 8 in 2008. No previous study assessed the effectiveness of FRD when compared with untreated Class II controls.…”

Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system

“…The use of Class II elastics in this study was minimal but could have contributed to mandibular incisor proclination. 12,13 Increases in transverse dimension in the Damon group could be explained by the wide Ormco Cu-NiTi archwires that were used during the first part of treatment. However, according to this logic, it would be expected that the mandibular intermolar width would be significantly greater after treatment in the Damon group than in the conventionally ligated group, but this result was not observed, possibly because of the bone biology of the mandible.…”

Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with Twin Force Bite Corrector

“…Similar observation of mesialization and extrusion of the upper molars and extrusion after use of the FFA has been reported. 10,11,[24][25][26] This may be attributed to the mechanics involved during finishing of treatment after removal of the FFA or natural tendency of teeth to drift mesially and occlusally with growth. 27 The dentoalveolar correction was achieved primarily by protraction of the lower molars and proclination of lower incisors in both groups under the mesially directed force from the FFA.…”