Evaluation of the splint-supported Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects

ObjectivesTo evaluate the use of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD), supported with bimaxillary splints, in treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion.Materials and MethodsData from 46 skeletal Class II females who received either conventional Forsus alone (FFRD group) (15 patients, 12.54 ± 0.90 years), FFRD and bimaxillary splints (splint-FFRD group) (15 patients, 12.29 ± 0.82 years), or were untreated controls (16 subjects, 12.1 ± 0.9 years) were retrieved from previous clinical trials. FFRD was inserted onto the mandibular archwire in the FFRD group after leveling and alignment with multibracket appliances. In the splint-FFRD group, Forsus was inserted between fixed maxillary and mandibular splints. Treatment continued until reaching an edge-to-edge incisor relationship.ResultsBoth treatment groups failed to induce significant mandibular skeletal effects compared to the normal growth exhibited by untreated controls. The splint-FFRD group showed significant reduction of SNA (−0.88° ± 0.51°) and ANB (−1.36° ± 0.87°). The mandibular incisors showed significant proclination in the FFRD (9.17° ± 2.42°) and splint-FFRD groups (7.06° ± 3.34°).ConclusionsThe newly proposed splint-supported FFRD was equally effective as the conventional FFRD in treatment of Class II malocclusion with dento-alveolar changes and additional maxillary restricting effect. It has an additional advantage of immediate initiation of the Class II correction.     

Evaluation of the miniplate-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects: A randomized controlled trial

Objectives:To evaluate the use of direct miniplate anchorage in conjunction with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) in treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion.Materials and Methods:Forty-eight females with skeletal Class II were randomly allocated to the Forsus plus miniplates (FMP) group (16 patients, age 12.5 ± 0.9 years), Forsus alone (FFRD; 16 patients, age 12.1 ± 0.9 years), or the untreated control group (16 subjects, age 12.1 ± 0.9 years). After leveling and alignment, miniplates were inserted in the mandibular symphysis in the FMP group. The FFRD was inserted directly on the miniplates in the FMP group and onto the mandibular archwires in the FFRD group. The appliances were removed after reaching an edge-to-edge incisor relationship.Results:Data from 46 subjects were analyzed. The effective mandibular length significantly increased in the FMP group only (4.05 ± 0.78). The mandibular incisors showed a significant proclination in the FFRD group (9.17 ± 2.42) and a nonsignificant retroclination in the FMP group (−1.49 ± 4.70). The failure rate of the miniplates was reported to be 13.3%.Conclusions:The use of miniplates with the FFRD was successful in increasing the effective mandibular length in Class II malocclusion subjects in the short term. The miniplate-anchored FFRD eliminated the unfavorable mandibular incisor proclination in contrast to the conventional FFRD.     

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

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the Forsus FRD appliance with miniplate anchorage inserted in the mandibular symphyses and to compare the findings with a well-matched control group treated with a Herbst appliance for the correction of a skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion.Materials and Methods:The sample consisted of 32 Class II subjects divided into two groups. Group I consisted of 16 patients (10 females and 6 males; mean age, 13.20 ± 1.33 years) treated using the Forsus FRD EZ appliance with miniplate anchorage inserted in the mandibular symphyses. Group II consisted of 16 patients (9 females and 7 males; mean age, 13.56 ± 1.27 years) treated using the Herbst appliance. Seventeen linear and 10 angular measurements were performed to evaluate and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the appliances using paired and Student''s t-tests.Results:Both appliances were effective in correcting skeletal class II malocclusion and showed similar skeletal and soft tissue changes. The maxillary incisor was statistically significantly more retruded in the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD group (P < .01). The mandibular incisor was retruded in the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD group (−4.09° ± 5.12°), while it was protruded in the Herbst group (7.50° ± 3.98°) (P < .001).Conclusion: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.     

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

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) used with miniscrew anchorage and compare them with those of the conventional Forsus FRD.Materials and Methods:This study was carried out on 38 patients. These patients were randomly allocated into three groups. The 14 patients in group 1 (aged 12.76 ± 1.0 years) were treated with the FRD appliance. In group 2, the 15 patients (aged 12.52 ± 1.12 years) received treatment with FRD using miniscrew anchorage, and the 9 patients in group 3 (aged 12.82 ± 0.9 years) received no treatment as a control group. Linear and angular measurements were made on lateral cephalograms before and immediately after Forsus treatment. Data were analyzed statistically using paired t-, ANOVA, and Tukey tests.Results:Class I molar relationship and overjet correction were achieved in both treatment groups. Although mandibular growth was statistically nonsignificant, there was a significant headgear effect on the maxilla. Mandibular incisor proclination, maxillary incisor retroclination, and distalization of maxillary molars were significant in both treatment groups. However, no significant differences were found between the treatment groups.Conclusions: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.     

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

Objective:To evaluate the dentofacial effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) used with miniscrew anchorage (FRDMS) and compare them with those of conventional FRD and an untreated Class II control group.Materials and Methods:The sample consisted of 48 Class II subjects. Sixteen patients (13.68 ± 1.09 years of age) were treated with FRDMS, whereas 17 subjects (14.64 ± 1.56 years of age) were treated with only FRD. Also, a control sample of 15 untreated Class II subjects (14.13 ± 1.50 years of age) was constructed. Angular and linear measurements were made on 96 lateral cephalograms. Paired t, one-way analysis of variance, and Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis.Results:Class I molar relationship and overjet correction were achieved in an average period of 6.5 ± 1.97 and 5.5 ± 1.80 months in the FRDMS and FRD groups, respectively. No skeletal effect was determined in both treatment groups. Greater overbite correction was found in the FRD group. Retrusion and extrusion of maxillary incisors, distalization of maxillary molars, and extrusion of mandibular molars were significant in both treatment groups. Labial tipping of mandibular incisors was significantly greater in the FRD group than in the FRDMS group.Conclusion:Overjet and molar correction was totally dentoalveolar. Unfavorable labial tipping of mandibular incisors was effectively minimized with the usage of miniscrews.     

Evaluation of the effects of skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD using miniplates inserted on mandibular symphysis: A new approach for the treatment of Class II malocclusion

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) appliance with miniplate anchorage for the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion.Material and Methods:The prospective clinical study group included 17 patients (11 girls and 6 boys; mean age 12.96 ± 1.23 years) with Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion and treated with skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD. After 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was inserted and cinched back in the maxillary arch, two miniplates were placed bilaterally on the mandibular symphysis. Then, the Forsus FRD EZ2 appliance was adjusted to the miniplates without leveling the mandibular arch. The changes in the leveling and skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD phases were evaluated by means of the Paired and Student''s t-tests using the cephalometric lateral films.Results:The success rate of the miniplates was found to be 91.5% (38 of 42 miniplates). The mandible significantly moved forward (P < .001) and caused a significant restraint in the sagittal position of the maxilla (P < .001). The overjet correction (−5.11 mm) was found to be mainly by skeletal changes (A-VRL, −1.16 mm and Pog-VRL, 2.62 mm; approximately 74%); the remaining changes were due to the dentoalveolar contributions. The maxillary and mandibular incisors were significantly retruded (P < .001).Conclusion:This new approach was an effective method for treating skeletal Class II malocclusion due to the mandibular retrusion via a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes.     

Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics

Objective:To compare the effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatments implemented in combination with Forsus or intermaxillary elastics in Class II subdivision subjects.Materials and Methods:Twenty-eight Class II subdivision patients were allocated to two groups using matched randomization: Forsus group (mean age, 14.19 ± 1.02 years) and elastics group (mean age, 13.75 ± 1.16 years). Patients received fixed appliance therapy in combination with either Forsus or intermaxillary elastics. The study was conducted on lateral cephalograms and digital models acquired before orthodontic treatment and 10–12 weeks after the fixed appliances were removed.Results:The treatment phase comprising the use of Forsus (4.53 ± 0.91 months) was significantly shorter compared with elastics application (6.85 ± 1.08 months). This was also true for comparing duration of overall comprehensive treatment in both groups. Extrusion and palatal tipping of maxillary incisors and clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane were greater in the elastics group (P < .05). The mandibular incisors were proclined in both groups (P < .001), but no significant difference was observed between groups (P > .05). The mandibular incisors showed intrusion in the Forsus group and extrusion in the elastics group; the difference between groups was significant (P < .05). Overbite was decreased in both groups (P < .001) in similar amounts. Improvement in overjet, mandibular midline deviation, and correction of molar relationship on the Class II side were greater in the Forsus group (P < .05).Conclusion:Forsus is more effective for correcting Class II subdivision malocclusion in a shorter treatment period with minimal patient compliance required.     

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

Objectives:To evaluate the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes after the use of miniscrew-anchored inverted Forsus fatigue-resistant device (FRD) in treatment of Class III malocclusion.Materials and Methods:In this controlled clinical trial, 16 patients (9 girls and 7 boys; age 12.45 ± 0.87 years) were consecutively treated with miniscrew-anchored inverted Forsus FRD. This group was compared with a matched control group of 16 untreated patients (8 girls and 8 boys; age 11.95 ± 1.04 years). Miniscrews were inserted bilaterally between the maxillary canine and first premolar. Forsus FRD was selected and inserted in an inverted manner mesial to the mandibular headgear tube and distal to the maxillary canine bracket.Results:Class I molar and canine relationships with positive overjet were achieved in an average period of 6.4 ± 1.46 months. Maxillary forward growth showed a statistically significant increase (SNA°: 1.73 ± 0.53, P < .5), maxillary incisor proclination was statistically significant (U1 to NA°: −0.39 ± 0.33, P > .5), and the lower incisors exhibited significant retroclination (L1 to NB°: 1.65 ± 0.83, P < .5). Significant lower lip retrusion and upper lip protrusion were obvious treatment outcomes (P < .5).Conclusions:The use of miniscrew-anchored inverted FRD could effectively increase maxillary forward growth, but it did not prevent mesial movement of the maxillary dentition. Significant lower incisor retroclination was observed. Significant esthetic improvement of the facial profile was achieved primarily because of lower lip retrusion and upper lip protrusion.     

Treatment effects produced by the Twin-block appliance vs the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in growing Class II patients

Objective:To compare the dentoskeletal changes produced by the Twin-block appliance (TB) followed by fixed appliances vs the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) in combination with fixed appliances in growing patients having Class II division 1 malocclusion.Materials and Methods:Twenty-eight Class II patients (19 females and 9 males; mean age, 12.4 years) treated consecutively with the TB followed by fixed appliances were compared with a group of 36 patients (16 females and 20 males; mean age, 12.3 years) treated consecutively with the FRD in combination with fixed appliances and with a sample of 27 subjects having untreated Class II malocclusion (13 females and 14 males; mean age, 12.2 years). Mean observation interval was 2.3 years in all groups. Cephalometric changes were compared among the three groups by means of ANOVA and Tukey''s post hoc tests.Results:The FRD produced a significant restraint of the maxilla compared with the TB and control samples (SNA, −1.1° and −1.8°, respectively). The TB sample exhibited significantly greater mandibular advancement and greater increments in total mandibular length than either the FRD or control groups (SNB, 1.9° and 1.5°, respectively; and Co-Gn, 2.0 mm and 3.4 mm, respectively). The FRD produced a significantly greater amount of proclination of the mandibular incisors than what occurred with the TB or the control samples (2.9° and 5.6°, respectively).Conclusion:The TB appliance produced greater skeletal effects in terms of mandibular advancement and growth stimulation while the Forsus caused significant proclination of the mandibular incisors.     

Camouflage treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion with multiloop edgewise arch wire and modified Class III elastics by maxillary mini-implant anchorage

Objective:To evaluate the effect of the multiloop edgewise arch wire (MEAW) technique with maxillary mini-implants in the camouflage treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion.Materials and Methods:Twenty patients were treated with the MEAW technique and modified Class III elastics from the maxillary mini-implants. Twenty-four patients were treated with MEAW and long Class III elastics from the upper second molars as control. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were obtained and analyzed before and after treatment, and 1 year after retention.Results:Satisfactory occlusion was established in both groups. Through principal component analysis, it could be concluded the anterior-posterior dental position, skeletal sagittal and vertical position, and upper molar vertical position changed within groups and between groups; vertical lower teeth position and Wits distance changed in the experimental group and between groups. In the experimental group, the lower incisors tipped lingually 2.7 mm and extruded 2.4 mm. The lingual inclination of the lower incisors increased 3.5°. The mandibular first molars tipped distally 9.1° and intruded 0.4 mm. Their cusps moved 3.4 mm distally. In the control group, the upper incisors proclined 3°, and the upper first molar extruded 2 mm. SN-MP increased 1.6° and S-Go/N-ME decreased 1.Conclusions:The MEAW technique combined with modified Class III elastics by maxillary mini-implants can effectively tip the mandibular molars distally without any extrusion and tip the lower incisors lingually with extrusion to camouflage skeletal Class III malocclusions. Clockwise rotation of the mandible and further proclination of upper incisors can be avoided. The MEAW technique and modified Class III elastics provided an appropriate treatment strategy especially for patients with high angle and open bite tendency.     

Comparative evaluation of treatment effects between two fixed functional appliances for correction of Class II malocclusion: A single-center,randomized controlled trial

Objective:The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of PowerScope and Forsus in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion.Materials and Methods:This was a 2-arm parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 28 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients indicated for treatment with fixed functional appliances were randomized and equally divided (n = 14) among PowerScope (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis; mean age 14.11 ± 1.3 years) and Forsus (3M Unitek Corp, Monrovia, Calif; mean age 15.5 ± 1.1 years) groups. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of PowerScope and Forsus were compared. The secondary outcomes were evaluation of patient comfort and operator convenience. Randomization was accomplished with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and concealment was achieved by sealed opaque envelopes. The participants and data collectors were all blinded to study group allocation. Data were analyzed for 26 patients, 13 in each group, as one patient from each group discontinued treatment. Statistical comparisons were carried out using Student''s t-tests and chi square tests (P ≤ .05).Results:A significantly greater mesial mandibular movement and improvement in sagittal skeletal relation were found in the Forsus patients (P ≤ .05). The forward movement of the mandibular molar and incisors were greater in the PowerScope patients (2.3 mm and 2.80 mm) than in the Forsus patients (1.9 mm and 2.38 mm).Conclusions:Both PowerScope and Forsus are effective in correcting Class II malocclusion. The percentage of dentoalveolar effects in correcting Class II malocclusion is more for PowerScope when compared with Forsus. Patient comfort was the same with both appliances. This trial was registered.     

Effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics: A pilot study and new approach for treating Class II malocclusion

Objective:To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of skeletally anchored Class II elastics and compare them with a matched control group treated by a monobloc appliance for the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion.Materials and Methods:Twelve patients (6 girls, 6 boys) were randomly divided into two groups. In the elastics group, six patients (12.9 ± 1.5 years of age; 3 boys, 3 girls) were treated with skeletally anchored Class II elastics. Two miniplates were placed bilaterally at the ramus of the mandible and the other two miniplates were placed at the aperture piriformis area of the maxilla. In the monobloc group (3 boys and 3 girls; mean age, 12.3 ± 1.6 years), patients used the monobloc appliance. The changes observed in each phase of treatment were evaluated using the Wilcoxon matched-pair sign test. Intergroup comparisons at the initial phase of treatment were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test.Results:There were statistically significant group differences in Co-Gn, B-VRL, U1-PP, U1-VRL, Ls-VRL, with significant increases in these parameters in the elastics group (P < .05). The mandibular incisors were protruded in the monobloc group (5.45 ± 1.23°), whereas they were retruded in the elastics group (−3.01 ± 1.66°; P < .01).Conclusions:The undesirable dentoalveolar effects of the monobloc appliance were eliminated by using miniplate anchorage. Favorable skeletal outcomes can be achieved by skeletal anchorage therapies which could be an alternative to treat skeletal Class II patients with mandibular deficiency.     

Do orthopedic corrections of growing retrognathic hyperdivergent patients produce stable results?

Objectives:To determine if posterior dental intrusion produces stable orthodontic and orthopedic corrections in growing retrognathic hyperdivergent patients.Materials and Methods:The sample included 14 subjects (five males and nine females), who were 13.4 ± 0.7 years pretreatment, treated for 3.5 years, and followed for 3.6 years posttreatment. During the initial orthopedic phase, 150 g NiTi coil springs were attached to two palatal miniscrew implants (MSIs) for maxillary intrusion; two buccal mandibular MSIs were used for posterior vertical control. Full orthodontic therapy was initiated to correct the malocclusions during the orthodontic phase. Patients were recalled a minimum of 1 year posttreatment (mean 3.6 ±1.6 years). Patients were compared to matched untreated controls.Results:Relative to the untreated controls, during treatment and retention, maxillary and mandibular molars underwent 2.8 mm and 3.7 mm of relative posterior intrusion, respectively. Maxillary incisors were extruded 1.3 mm and the mandibular incisors underwent 2.9 mm of relative intrusion. Overall orthopedic changes included a reduction in the mandibular plane angle (MPA; 3.3°), an increase in SN-Pg (2.4°), an increase in S-N-B (2.1°), and a 4.3 mm relative reduction in anterior facial height. The maxillary incisors, which showed 0.6 mm of intrusion (relative to controls), was the only dental or skeletal measure to show a statistically significant between-group posttreatment difference.Conclusions:Except for maxillary incisor position, the substantial dental intrusion and associated orthopedic corrections that were produced during treatment remained stable post-treatment.     

Combined use of miniscrews and continuous arch for intrusive root movement of incisors in Class II division 2 with gummy smile

Adequate intrusion and torque control of the retroclined maxillary incisors are critical for the treatment of Class II division 2 (div2) malocclusion. In addition, anterior retraction via lingual root movement can be challenging. This case report demonstrates a combined use of miniscrews and continuous arch with additional torque for intrusion, retraction, and torque control of maxillary incisors in the Class II div2 with gummy smile. A 20-year-old woman presented with multiple issues, including impacted canine, lip protrusion, prolonged retained mandibular primary molar, and two missing maxillary premolars. In order to improve her facial profile and eliminate the need for prosthetic work, the mandibular primary molar and contralateral premolar were extracted. Two miniscrews were placed at the maxillary buccal alveolar bone to apply the posterosuperior force for retraction of anterior teeth, with additional labial crown torque on the arch wire. The results were the intrusion (4 mm) and lingual root movement (17°) of the maxillary incisors without anchorage loss of maxillary molars, flattening of the Curve of Spee, and Class I molar relation that were maintained after 50 months of retention period. The combined use of miniscrews and continuous arch could be a reliable and effective treatment modality for torque control and intrusion of retroclined maxillary incisors in the Class II div2 patient.     

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

Objective:To compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the miniplate anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) and the conventional Forsus FRD in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.Materials and Methods:The study was carried out with 30 patients (10 girls, 20 boys). In the MA-Forsus group, 15 patients (2 girls, 13 boys) were treated with a miniplate anchored Forsus FRD for 9.40 ± 2.25 months. In the C-Forsus group, 15 patients (8 girls, 7 boys) were treated with a conventional Forsus FRD for 9.46 ± 0.81 months. A total of 16 measurements were calculated and statistically analyzed to find intragroup and intergroup differences.Results:Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in IMPA, SN/Occ, SN/GoGn, overjet, overbite, and Li-S measurements (P < .05). In the C-Forsus group, a substantial amount of lower incisor protrusion was observed, whereas retrusion was found in the MA-Forsus group (P < .001). The mandible rotated backward in the MA-Forsus group, whereas it remained unchanged in the C-Forsus group (P < .05). Reductions in overjet (P < .001) and overbite were greater in the C-Forsus group (P < .05).Conclusion:Stimulation of mandibular growth and inhibition of maxillary growth were achieved in both treatment groups. In the C-Forsus group, a substantial amount of lower incisor protrusion was observed, whereas retrusion of lower incisors was found in the MA-Forsus group. The MA-Forsus group was found to be more advantageous as it had no dentoalveolar side effects on mandibular dentition.     

Analysis of Class II patients,successfully treated with the straight-wire and Forsus appliances,based on cervical vertebral maturation status

Objective:To assess skeletal and dental changes in patients successfully treated with the Forsus appliance based on cervical vertebral maturation status.Methods:Forty-seven Class II patients, successfully treated with the Forsus appliance, were divided into peak and postpeak growth groups determined immediately prior to Forsus placement. The mean (SD) ages of the peak and postpeak groups were 13.4 (1.0) and 14.1 (1.3) years, respectively. Superimpositions of initial, Forsus placement, Forsus removal, and final cephalometric radiographs were completed, allowing the measurement of changes during three treatment phases.Results:There were no significant differences between groups during treatment phase 1 (alignment/leveling), with both groups demonstrating a worsening of the Class II molar relationship. However, during treatment phase 2 (Class II correction), patients within the peak group demonstrated significantly higher mean apical base, mandibular and molar changes, and an increased rate of change compared with those in the postpeak group. No significant differences were observed during treatment phase 3 (detail/finishing).Conclusions:Following an initial worsening of the Class II molar relationship as a result of straight-wire appliance effects, Forsus appliance treatment initiated during cervical vertebral maturation status (CS) 3–4 elicits more effective and efficient correction of Class II molar relationships than when initiated during CS 5–6. Data support that these effects are due mainly to maxillary skeletal and dentoalveolar restraint during a period of more rapid mandibular growth.     

Asymmetric severe skeletal Class II division 1 patient with temporomandibular joint disorder treated with zygomatic anchorage devices and Ni-Ti alloy wires

Objective:To describe the orthodontic treatment of a nongrowing 30-year-old woman with asymmetric severe skeletal Class II malocclusions (asymmetric Angle Class II), large overjet (16 mm), large overbite (8 mm), two congenitally missing mandibular incisors (presenting a deciduous anterior tooth), and signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD).Materials and Methods:We used novel improved super-elastic Ni-Ti alloy wires (ISWs) combined with Ni-Ti alloy coil springs, power hooks, and a zygomatic implant as reinforced anchorage to provide a constant and continuous mild force to the dentition.Results:We successfully distalized maxillary molars, premolars, and retracted anterior teeth and corrected the asymmetric Angle Class II molar relationship using this system of zygomatic anchorage in conjunction with ISWs, Ni-Ti alloy open-coil springs, and crimpable power hook. The maxillary molars were distalized, and postero-occlusal relationships were improved to achieve Class I canine and molar relationships on both sides. Intrusion of the upper molars made the mandibular plane close. Ideal overbite and overjet relationships were established. Facial esthetics were improved with decreased upper and lower lip protrusion, and no symptoms of TMD were observed after treatment.Conclusion:The orthodontic treatment described here is a promising anchorage technique alternative to traditional techniques to improve severe skeletal Class II with TMD.     

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

The use of skeletal anchorage with fixed functional appliances (FFA) has been proposed by various authors to produce skeletal changes and reduce lower incisor proclination. To compare the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) with or without skeletal anchorage (miniplates and mini-implants). The electronic database PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and Google Scholar along with a manual search of orthodontic journals till the year 2019. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review. One controlled clinical trial (CCT) which involved FFRD was included in the review since it was a continuation of an RCT which was expanded to a CCT. Skeletal and dentoalveolar outcome data were extracted to collect study characteristics. After evaluating risk of bias, the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Three RCTs and one prospective CCT were evaluated. The analysis included data from 116 Class II subjects [(58) treated with FFA along with skeletal anchorage and (58) treated with FFA]. There were no significant difference between the two groups with respect to mandibular length changes (P value = .10) and SNB angle changes (P value = .22). With respect to lower incisor inclination however, there was a significant difference between the two groups (P value = .005) signifying better results with respect to skeletal anchorage. The studies reviewed provide insufficient evidence to form a conclusion regarding the effects of the use of skeletal anchorage with FFRD. The available weak evidence suggests that the use of skeletal anchorage with FFRD has no superior skeletal effects but is able to reduce proclination of the lower incisors. Control of lower incisor proclination remains the most significant advantage of skeletal reinforcement, and miniplate-anchored FFRD showed more promising results in preventing lower incisor proclination than miniscrew-anchored FFRD.     

Occlusal plane canting reduction accompanies mandibular counterclockwise rotation in camouflaging treatment of hyperdivergent skeletal Class II malocclusion

ObjectiveTo investigate the occlusal configurations of the hyperdivergent skeletal Class II malocclusion and their alterations during the camouflaging treatment in an attempt to identify occlusal changes that might be related to mandibular counterclockwise rotation.Materials and MethodsCephalograms of 126 subjects with hyperdivergent skeletal Class II malocclusion and 126 subjects with a clinically normal skeletal pattern were chosen. Several measurements were calculated and compared between the groups. To examine the effects of treatment, two groups were established according to mandibular rotation: counterclockwise rotation (CCR) and the opposite clockwise rotation (CR). After 40 subjects were excluded, the other 86 Class II subjects were assigned to CCR (n  =  22) and CR (n  =  64). Their pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and postretention (T3) cephalograms were obtained. Measurement changes (T3-T1) were analyzed in each group and compared between groups.ResultsCompared with the normal skeletal pattern, the cant of the occlusal plane (OP) of the study subjects was significantly steeper and the vertical heights of the incisors were significantly larger for the malocclusion. Compared with the changes in CR, there was a prominent reduction of the OP canting with remarkable intrusion of the maxillary incisor in CCR.ConclusionIncreased OP canting with overerupted incisors is evident in the hyperdivergent skeletal Class II malocclusion. During the camouflaging treatment, reduction of OP canting could occur. It was accompanied by mandibular counterclockwise rotation and intrusion of the maxillary incisor.     

Dentofacial effects of two facemask therapies for maxillary protraction: Miniscrew implants versus rapid maxillary expanders

Objective:To compare the dentofacial effects of maxillary protraction with two facemask therapies in growing Class III patients: facemask in association with miniscrew implants (MSI/FM) and facemask with rapid maxillary expanders (RME/FM).Materials and Methods:Forty-three Chinese patients with Class III malocclusion and maxillary deficiency were randomly assigned to a MSI/FM sample of 20 patients and a RME/FM sample of 23 subjects. The changes in dentofacial cephalometric variables from the beginning (T1) to the end of treatment (T2) were compared with t-test for paired samples in both groups and for independent samples between the two groups.Results:No significant cephalometric differences were observed between the two groups in active treatment effects except for maxillary dental variables. However, significant favorable changes in both maxillary and mandibular skeletal components were noted in two groups after treatment. Sagittal measurements showed the maxilla was advanced, mandibular projection was reduced, and the relative sagittal intermaxillary discrepancy improved. Patients experienced additional unfavorable outcomes of clockwise rotation of the mandible as well as retroclination of the lower incisors. The soft tissue profile was improved remarkably in both groups. Proclination of the maxillary incisors and mesialization of the maxillary dentition were significantly different between the two groups. The increases in U1-SN, U1-VR, and U6-VR were 6.41°, 2.78 mm, and 1.24 mm less in the MSI/FM group than in the RME/FM group, respectively.Conclusions:Compared with the RME/FM therapy, the MSI/FM protocol using a smaller magnitude of protraction force improves skeletal relationships and soft tissue profile and reduces the undesired dentoalveolar effects.