Treatment outcome and long‐term stability of class II correction with forsus fatigue resistant device in non‐growing patients

Abstract

ObjectivesForsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) is one of the commonly used semirigid fixed functional devices. Purpose of the present study was to investigate effects and long‐term stability of Class II correction following use of Forsus FRD in a retrospective clinical study.Setting and Sample PopulationRecords of 20 patients (mean age 18.3 ± 2.5 years) with Class II malocclusion, who had undergone fixed functional treatment protocol with Forsus FRD, were collected from our clinical archive.Materials and MethodsLateral cephalometric radiographs at pre‐treatment (T0), end of comprehensive treatment (T1) and post‐retention period (T2, mean duration: 19 ± 3 months) were analysed and superimposed to assess skeletal and dental changes on the long‐term. Repeated measurement one way ANOVA was used for the study of the significant differences among the mean values of cephalometric parameters at T0, T1, and T2. To analyse the nature of the bilateral significant differences between two different time points, Bonferroni test was used.ResultsSagittal and vertical skeletal changes at T0‐T1 were statistically insignificant while all dentoalveolar parameters exhibited highly significant changes. At T1‐T2, all skeletal and dentoalveolar parameters were stable except the slight relapse in overjet (0.3 ± 0.5 mm; P < .05). At T0‐T2 interval, no significant skeletal changes were recorded while the dentoalveolar changes remained significantly improved.ConclusionCorrection of Class II malocclusion achieved with Forsus FRD was dentoalveolar and treatment effects were stable in the 19 ± 3 months follow‐up period.

Class II treatment effects with fixed functional appliances: Jasper jumper vs. Forsus fatigue resistant device

“…Treatment protocols promoted a significant labial tipping (1.NB) and intrusion (1‐PM) of the mandibular incisors compared with the control group (Table 4). These effects are in accordance with previous studies 6,8,13‐16,18,21‐25,30,31,33‐35 . This may result from forward and downward force vectors produced by the Jasper Jumper and Forsus appliances in the anterior region.…”

“…Several authors have already shown these corrections using the Jasper Jumper 6,20,30 and the Forsus appliances. 6,[13][14][15][16]18,19,21,22,25,31,33,35 The experimental groups presented greater retrusion of the upper lip than the control group, agreeing with previous studies evaluating fixed functional appliances. 14,31,32 This effect can be associated with the restriction of maxillary growth, 38 once maxillary incisors were retruded and tipped to lingual similarly in the groups (Table 4).…”

“…These improvements in the experimental groups regarding dental relationships are due to dental and skeletal changes described above. Several authors have already shown these corrections using the Jasper Jumper 6,20,30 and the Forsus appliances 6,13‐16,18,19,21,22,25,31,33,35 …”

“…This effect promoted by treatment with the Jasper Jumper and Forsus appliances has been widely reported in the literature. 6,16,[23][24][25]33,34 Treatment protocols promoted a significant labial tipping (1.NB) and intrusion (1-PM) of the mandibular incisors compared with the control group (Table 4). These effects are in accordance with previous studies.…”

“…These effects are in accordance with previous studies. 6,8,[13][14][15][16]18,[21][22][23][24][25]30,31,[33][34][35] This may result from forward and downward force vectors produced by the Jasper Jumper and Forsus appliances in the anterior region.…”