Treatment outcomes of Class II malocclusion cases treated with miniscrew-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Class II correction was mainly dentoalveolar in both treatment groups. Use of miniscrews with Forsus did not enhance mandibular forward growth nor prevent labial tipping of the mandibular incisors.

Skeletally anchored forsus fatigue resistant device for correction of Class II malocclusions—A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…However, the decrease in SNA angle was greater in the control group (−0.96°) compared with the skeletal anchorage group. Eissa et al 30 and Aslan et al 18 also reported values similar to Elkordy et al 28 in which they had a greater decrease in SNA angle and increase in SNB angle in the skeletal anchorage groups compared with the control groups.…”

“…Elkordy et al 28 and Turakhraman et al 29 reported significant increase in mandibular length with skeletal anchorage (4.05 and 3.69 mm respectively). Eissa et al 30 reported an increase of 1.03 mm when used along with skeletal anchorage but was not clinically significant when compared to the control group (0.61 mm).…”

“…Elkordy et al, 28 Turkkahraman et al 29 and Eissa et al 30 had a Level 2 Evidence design while Aslan et al 18 had a Level 3 Evidence design.…”

Treatment of Class III malocclusion using miniscrew-anchored inverted Forsus FRD: Controlled clinical trial

“…14 TADs can be easily placed clinically in one appointment by the orthodontist with no need for complicated surgical procedures to facilitate safe and precise implant placement or to connect it to the teeth. Eissa et al 15 recently reported the use of a miniscrew-anchored Forsus in correction of Class II malocclusion. However, there is no evidence in the literature supporting the clinical effectiveness of miniscrew-anchored fixed functional appliances for the treatment of Class III malocclusion.…”

Comparative study of the effects of the fixed functional appliances forsus fatigue resistant device and MARA in treatment of class II malocclusion through lateral cephalograms analysis

“…The sample size was calculated based on an alpha significance level of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 to detect a mean difference of 2mm with a standard deviation of 1.5mm in the changes in mandibular length between the pretreatment and posttreatment stages 18 . The results showed that a minimum of 12 patients were needed in each group; to increase the test power even more, it was decided to select 32 patients for the treatment group.…”