Effects of miniplate anchored and conventional Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices in the treatment of Class II malocclusion

Abstract

Objective: To compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the miniplate anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) and the conventional Forsus FRD in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: The study was carried out with 30 patients (10 girls, 20 boys). In the MAForsus group, 15 patients (2 girls, 13 boys) were treated with a miniplate anchored Forsus FRD for 9.40 6 2.25 months. In the C-Forsus group, 15 patients (8 girls, 7 boys) were treated with a conventional Forsus FRD for 9.46 6 0.81 months. A total of 16 measurements were calculated and statistically analyzed to find intragroup and intergroup differences. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in IMPA, SN/Occ, SN/ GoGn, overjet, overbite, and Li-S measurements (P , .05). In the C-Forsus group, a substantial amount of lower incisor protrusion was observed, whereas retrusion was found in the MA-Forsus group (P , .001). The mandible rotated backward in the MA-Forsus group, whereas it remained unchanged in the C-Forsus group (P , .05). Reductions in overjet (P , .001) and overbite were greater in the C-Forsus group (P , .05). Conclusion: Stimulation of mandibular growth and inhibition of maxillary growth were achieved in both treatment groups. In the C-Forsus group, a substantial amount of lower incisor protrusion was observed, whereas retrusion of lower incisors was found in the MA-Forsus group. The MA-Forsus group was found to be more advantageous as it had no dentoalveolar side effects on mandibular dentition. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:1026-1032

Buccal bone graft with surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion in young adults: a cone beam computerized tomographic study

“…The FFRD group results are in agreement with the most recent systematic reviews that mentioned that FFAs could not induce skeletal changes 41,42 . The inclusion of the control group was the reason for the discrepancy between our results and those of Turk kahraman et al 25 who mentioned that the FFRD alone and FFRD miniplates were able to induce lengthening of the mandible.…”

“…Clockwise mandibular rotation was shown to be significantly higher in the FMP group in accordance with previous studies 22,23,25 . The mentioned posterior rotation of the mandible could have masked the increase in the SNB which is only an indicator of mandibular positional change rather than a change of its size 43 .…”

“…Undesirable tooth movements and anchorage loss complicate the treatment outcomes of Fixed functional appliances (FFA) and could hinder the skeletal correction. 12,13,30 Skeletal anchorage was suggested to be used to overcome the dento-alveolar side effects of the appliance therapy 13,16,22,23,25 .…”

“…Titanium miniplates were used for directly anchoring the FFRD and the mandibular arches were not bonded in accordance with previous studies 22,23,25 to apply load directly to the mandibular base. Y shaped miniplates were used as recommended by Huang et al 39 , who proved that the Y and T shaped miniplates produced the least amount of bone stresses when used for orthodontic anchorage.…”

“…They were proven to be well accepted by patients and providers and became popularin various applications [18][19][20][21] . Recently, they were used for the direct loading of FFRD for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion but the available studies were either retrospective 22 , non-controlled 23 or non-randomized 24,25 .…”