Evaluation of Clinical Effectiveness of Churro Jumper Appliance in the Treatment of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion with Retrognathic Mandible

Three-dimensional evaluation of the efficacy of Powerscope appliance in treatment of skeletal Class 2 malocclusion: A prospective clinical study

“…This change was a result of the forward position of the mandibular base using the Powerscope appliance that brought the position of point B forward. That was in agreement with the results of Powerscope studies ((23,14,19,28,16,17) in addition to the following studies (20,25,26,27) using MARA, Churro Jumper, FNFS, JJ, and SUS 2 appliances. On the contrary, studies (11,24) used the Powerscope appliance, and also studies (21,22) using FFRD and TFBC showed no significant change happened in the anteroposterior position of the mandible.…”

“…There was a statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05) decrease in SNA angle which indicated the effect of Powerscope appliance on the restriction of the maxillary base that was agreed with the results reported by other Powerscope studies (23,24,16) in addition to studies (25,26,27) using Churro Jumper, Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring (FNFS), Jasper Jumper (JJ) and Sabbagh Universal Spring 2 (SUS 2) appliances. On the contrary, studies (11,14,18,19,17) using Powerscope appliance and other studies (20,21,22) using Mandibular Anterior Repositioning Appliance (MARA), Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) and Twin Force Bite Corrector (TFBC) appliances showed no statistically significant changes happened to SNA angle and consequently to the maxilla.…”

“…There was proclination of the lower incisor with a statistically significant increase of IMPA by 8.65˚ ±5.38˚, this agreed with the results of studies (11,23,14,16,17) using Powerscope appliance in addition to studies (20,25,29,21,27,22) using MARA, Churro Jumper, Eureka Spring, FFRD, SUS 2 and TFBC appliances. The findings were against the results of studies (28,24) using the Powerscope appliance, which showed no change in the lower incisor inclination.…”

“…There was a statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05) retroclination of the upper incisor with the decrease in U1-SN, which agreed with the results of Powerscope studies (14,23,24,28) in addition to studies (25,26,21) using Churro Jumper, FNFS, JJ, and FFRD appliances. On the contrary, studies (11,19,16,17) using Powerscope˚ appliance and a study (22) using TFBC showed no change in the upper incisor inclination.…”

“…The forward positioning of the chin takes place as a result of the action of the Powerscope appliance, which is explained by a statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05) increase in the Facial angle. This was also found in Powerscope appliance studies (18,19,23) and a Churro Jumper study (25) which showed a statistically significant anterior or forward position of Pog point indicating forward positioning of the mandible.…”