Treatment effects of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ and Herbst appliances: A retrospective clinical study

Abstract

Although both appliances were successful in correcting the skeletal Class II malocclusion, the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ appliance did so without protruding the mandibular incisors.

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

“…In accordance with our results, Unal et al 12 and Celikoglu et al 13 also reported significant mandibular posterior rotation with a skeletally anchored Forsus appliance. In contrast, Aslan et al 11 reported nonsignificant changes in the mandibular plane angle with miniscrew-supported and conventional Forsus appliances.…”

“…Our results were in accordance with previous studies that have reported similar findings with Forsus appliances. 3,[6][7][8][9][12][13][14]16,17 In contrast, several studies have reported that the Forsus FRD had no significant effect on maxillary growth. 2,5,10,11,18 The effects of the Forsus FRD on mandibular growth were investigated by SNB and Co-Gn measurements.…”

“…7,16 Studies have recently focused on eliminating these undesirable effects. [12][13][14] The effects of the Forsus FRD appliance on maxillary growth were investigated by SNA and Co-A measurements. In both groups, a significant decrease was found in the SNA angle.…”

“…Our results were in accordance with those of previous studies that reported stimulated mandibular growth with Forsus appliances. 2,6,8,[12][13][14][16][17][18] The increase in effective mandibular length in the MA-Forsus group was 3.69 mm, while it was 2.50 mm in the C-Forsus group. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant.…”

“…[12][13][14] However, to our knowledge, no study has compared the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of miniplate anchored Forsus FRDs and conventional Forsus FRDs in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue effects of miniplate anchored Forsus FRDs and conventional Forsus FRDs in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.…”