Comparison of patient acceptance of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device with and without mini-implant anchorage: A randomized controlled trial

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the stability of mini-implants close to the roots of adjacent teeth upon application of bite force

“…The main cause of implant loss is a stress concentration at the bone-implant interface that exceeds the tolerance of the bone. The loading scheme applied to a mini-implant will be determined by the goal of the orthodontic treatment and may be single loading or combined loading, with a variable loading direction 17) . The peak values of stress and displacement within the bone around the implant neck and the surrounding bone close to the tooth root increase significantly as the distance between the implant and the root decreases.…”

Optimization of Class II Malocclusion Treatments Using the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistance Device and Its Post-Treatment Effect in Adult Patients: A Case Report

“…Based on this and supported by the literature, it was possible to consider and suggest some treatment options to the patient, such as a surgical-orthodontic treatment [20,38]; upper first molar extractions [39,40], the use of intermaxillary Class II elastics [24,41], which would need patient cooperation; and the use of fixed functional appliances-rigid [18,19,[21][22][23]25], semi-rigid [8,11,12,37], but, mainly, hybrid appliances as the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device [3,7,11,[13][14][15]17,[32][33][34]35]. The chosen protocol was to use the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device that has shown to be an effective device, providing greater comfort to patients [7,11,[14][15][16][17]33,34] and good resistance [10,13,15,35] when treating Class II malocclusions.…”

“…The decision to treat this case using the Forsus hybrid functional appliance was taken due to the patient's main complaint, the characteristics of the malocclusion and, mainly, the facial features that have shown facial asymmetry within the normal standards, i.e., convex profile, but with passive lip seal, harmonic nasolabial angle and horizontal growth pattern [1,2,[4][5][6]8,9,12,25,28,30,33,34,35]. Other treatment options were considered unfavorable due to the presented clinical condition and the patient's main complaint and treatment choice.…”

“…However, due to the need of patient's cooperation [24], another treatment option was considered. The treatment option was, then, the use of the Forsus fixed functional appliance because it is easy to instalatt [10,11,13] and, mainly, because it provides comfort to patient, allowing greater freedom to the eccentric and centric mandible movements [7,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]33,34], and, also, better resistance [10,13] and performance with light forces (average of 220 to 250g) [15,35]. Other functional appliances, such as the Herbst and the Jasper-jumper, provide, in a long-term run, the same dentoskeletal results as the hybrid appliances [8,11,12,18,19,[21][22][23]25].…”

“…It is a comfortable device [7], as it does not completely limit the mandible movement and, in the current version, it shows a very low breakage rate [10,14,[32][33][34]. The Forsus appliance, when installed in the upper first molar tube in the lower leveling arch wire, at the distal of the cuspid bracket [3,11,15,17] or, at the distal of the lower first premolar [14], exerts a force of 220 g approximately in both jaws, in opposite directions [15,35].…”