Patient experiences with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device

Abstract

Objective: To investigate patients' experiences with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD). Methods: This was a survey focused on patient's comprehensive experience with FFRD, both initially and after several months of wear, including the patient's overall impression of the appliance. The survey was administered to 70 patients wearing FFRD in both university and private practice settings. Results: A high percentage (81.5%) reported a neutral to favorable experience with FFRD; 89.8% reported growing accustomed to the appliance within 4 weeks. The majority of those who had previously worn rubber bands found FFRD to be ''easier.'' Cheek irritation was the most serious side effect (about 50%). Cheek irritation and other negative effects generally decreased over time. Conclusions: The FFRD is relatively well accepted by patients. Most patients experience some discomfort and functional limitations; however, the effect generally diminishes with time, and patients adapt to the appliance. Practitioners should be especially vigilant about problems with cheek irritation. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:437-446.)

Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage

“…Except the failure of miniscrews in two patients during FRD application, there was also mobility in three other patients just after 1 or 2 weeks of miniscrew insertion, which could be due to thin cortical bone or poor oral hygiene. The failure rate of miniscrews in our study was close to the value of a meta-analysis reported by Papageorgiou et al 13 The breakage rate of FRD was low in our study compared to that in the survey study by Bowman et al, 14 which might be related to patients' cooperation level.…”

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.…”

“…Such considerations occurred due to the lack of studies comparing the control group, presenting the same malocclusion, to the treated group [5,6], the lack of patient's cooperation [7][8][9], the use of removable orthopedic devices in growing patients [8], the high breakage rate of fixed orthopedic appliances [10][11][12][13], and, discomfort caused to patients by the use of removable and fixed orthopedic devices [10,11,13]. In the twenty-first century, the launch of the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device brought a new proposal to treatments, considering patient comfort in the set-up day and along the treatment, due to the lack of mandibular postural change and easiness of performing the functional mandibular movements [7,11,[14][15][16][17]. Additionally, there are also scientific evidences demonstrating that the impact on growth pattern is temporary after treatment as, in a long-term run, changes responding to growth pattern already exists genetically [3,16,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][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].…”

“…The mechanism of the dentoalveolar action of such devices over the upper anterior [2,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]14,15,17,28,36,37] and posterior teeth [3,6,[8][9][10][11]13,35,36] and over the lower anterior [5,6,8,[9][10][11][13][14][15]17,28,[35][36][37] and posterior teeth [3,8,[9][10][11]14,17] are often responsible for the clockwise shift of the occlusal [5,9,10,16,17,35] and palatal [2] planes, generating a clockwise resultant on the mandibular plane …”