Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in the treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusions

Abstract

By this investigation, two treatment methods, which are currently used in clinical practice, will be evaluated, and the results will be useful for clinicians.

Evaluation of the effects of skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD using miniplates inserted on mandibular symphysis: A new approach for the treatment of Class II malocclusion

“…These dentoalveolar changes, combined with skeletal contributions, caused a significant correction in the overjet (25.11 6 2.43 mm). Compared with previous studies, 6,7,9,10,15,22 the decrease in the maxillary incisor inclination was found to be greater in the present study (210.86 6 4.57u). This might be due to the use of skeletal anchorage in the mandible that transmitted the force to the maxillary arch.…”

“…This high pull headgear effect was also reported in some studies 7,10,14,21 for the Forsus appliances. In contrast, some authors 6,8,15,22 showed that the Forsus had no significant skeletal effects on the maxilla.…”

“…These findings supported the previous studies showing the efficiency of fixed functional appliances, including the Herbst 23 and Forsus 10,21 appliances. According to Bilgic et al, 10 the mean differences between Forsus and untreated control groups were 21.7u for SNA, 0.4u for SNB, 22.1u for ANB, and 2.6 mm for Co-Gn. In the study of Cacciatore et al, 21 these differences were 21.7u, 20.2u, 21.5u, and 1.9 mm, respectively.…”

“…This shows the efficiency of the present approach compared with the lower skeletal contributions reported in previous studies. 6,[8][9][10]15 The methods previously described to prevent mandibular incisor protrusion, such as using negative-torqued mandibular incisor brackets, sectional arches, and mini screws, were found to be unsuccessful, although the use of miniscrews decreased the mandibular incisor protrusion. 15 In the present study, the mandibular incisors were surprisingly retruded and this finding was also noted by Celikoglu et al 16 This change might be useful in the treatment of Class II malocclusion with protruded mandibular incisors and with diastema.…”

“…[6][7][8][9][10] Various fixed functional appliances 4,6,[8][9][10][11][12][13] have usually been used for the treatment of those patients to eliminate the disadvantages of removable appliances; removable appliances are bulky and loose in the mouth, so they are not easy for patients to use; thus, insufficient patient cooperation occurs. 10 Of the various fixed functional appliances, Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device (FRD) EZ (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) is one of the newest popular appliances that do not need patient cooperation and is reported to be more comfortable for patients.…”