Forsus矫治器对骨性Ⅱ类错袷下颌矢状运动时髁突轨迹影响的初步分析

目的探讨Forsus矫治器对骨性Ⅱ类错[牙合]下颌矢状运动时髁突轨迹的影响方法选取骨性Ⅱ类错[牙合]患者10例作为实验组，10例安氏Ⅰ类患者为对照组。应用髁突运动轨迹轴图描记仪，对实验组戴用Forsus矫治器前后及对照组下颌矢状运动时的髁突运动轨迹进行检查和记录，对结果进行定性定量分析。结果实验组戴用Forsus矫治器前后，髁突的垂直向位移和旋转度比对照组均偏大（P〈0．01），而实验组矫治前后髁突的垂直向位移和旋转度均无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。结论短期使用Forsus矫治器对Ⅱ类错[牙合]患者的髁突轨迹无明显影响。     

Forsus矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩患者的临床疗效评估

安氏Ⅱ类错合是临床上常见的一种错[牙合]畸形,下颌后缩是此类错[牙合]最普遍的特征。促进下颌骨的生长发育,是矫正下颌后缩的有效方法和治疗关键。Forsus矫治器作为一种新型的引导下颌前伸的固定型功能矫治器,不依赖患者合作,可以与固定矫治器同时使用,具有其独特的优越性。本研究旨在通过头影测量分析方法,评价Forsus矫治器对恒牙早期安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩患者的临床矫治效果。     

Forsus矫治器治疗恒牙初期安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)的临床疗效

目的探讨Forsus矫治器的治疗对安氏Ⅱ类错牙合硬组织变化的影响。方法临床选择恒牙初期的安氏Ⅱ类错牙合患者12例,年龄11~15岁。采用Forsus矫治器治疗,治疗前、后进行X线头影测量分析,并评价其疗效。结果12例患者经过4~7个月(平均6个月)的治疗,面形改善明显,并获得Ⅰ类磨牙关系,前牙覆牙合覆盖正常。矫治前后X线头影测量结果中下颌骨的B、Pg、Co三点的变化都有显著的统计学差异;在覆盖和磨牙关系的变化中,骨性改变占总变化的38.2%和32.3%;上、下颌平面角及面下高无显著变化,但上下牙合平面发生顺时针的旋转。结论Forsus矫治器对于生长期的安氏Ⅱ类错牙合可以产生一定的生长改良作用。     

Forsus矫治器对骨性Ⅱ类错(牙合)下颌矢状运动时髁突轨迹影响的初步分析

目的 探讨Forsus矫治器对骨性Ⅱ类错(牙合)下颌矢状运动时髁突轨迹的影响方法选取骨性Ⅱ类错(牙合)患者10例作为实验组,10例安氏Ⅰ类患者为对照组.应用髁突运动轨迹轴图描记仪,对实验组戴用Forsus矫治器前后及对照组下颌矢状运动时的髁突运动轨迹进行检查和记录,对结果进行定性定量分析.结果 实验组戴用Forsus矫治器前后,髁突的垂直向位移和旋转度比对照组均偏大(P＜0.01),而实验组矫治前后髁突的垂直向位移和旋转度均无显著性差异(P＞0.05).结论 短期使用Forsus矫治器对Ⅱ类错(牙合)患者的髁突轨迹无明显影响.     

Forsus矫治器不拔牙矫治下颌后缩患者1例

目的 探讨Forsus矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)下颌后缩患者的矫治效果.方法 采用Forsus矫治器对1例下颌后缩患者进行矫治,并对矫治前后的X线片及牙、(牙合)、面像进行对照.结果 经过16个月的矫治,患者软组织侧貌良好,磨牙及尖牙均为Ⅰ类关系,上下颌牙列整齐,间隙关闭,上下颌中线一致.结论 Forsus矫治器结构简单,临床操作方便快捷,可与固定矫治器同时使用,对恒牙早期安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩患者矫治效果明显.     

Frankel和Forsus功能矫治器治疗骨性Ⅱ类错(牙合)的临床对比研究

目的 探讨Frankel和Forsus功能矫治器治疗骨性Ⅱ类错(牙合)的临床疗效.方法 选择使用Frankel和Forsus功能矫治器治疗成功的20例骨性Ⅱ类错(牙合)患者为研究对象.随机分成两组,每组10例患者.在治疗前后对每位患者拍摄X线头颅侧位片,对其治疗前后的X线头影测量值进行比较.结果 矢状向关系上ANB角、SNB角、OJ、GO-GN、CO-GN、L1-MP的变化具有统计学意义,垂直向关系上N-ME、ANS-ME、SGO的变化具有统计学意义;Forsus组患者下前牙的唇倾度(L1-MP)和刺激下颌骨生长的作用更明显.结论 Activator和Forsus功能矫治器对骨性Ⅱ类错(牙合)具有相似的矫治机制,但Forsus矫治器对下前牙的唇倾和下颌的矫形作用更显著.     

Forsus推杆矫治器矫治安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)的牙颌结构变化

目的:探讨Forsus推杆矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ 类错(牙合)引起的牙颌面结构变化.方法:采用Forsus推杆矫治器对21 例11～16岁安氏Ⅱ 类错(牙合)患者进行治疗,并对术前术后X线片进行头影测量分析.结果:经过6～9 个月治疗,下颌向前生长(2.73±1.13) mm,而上前牙舌倾(1.87±2.26) mm,下前牙唇倾(4.74±1.47) mm,覆盖减小(6.61±1.77) mm,其中上下颌骨生长所致占35.1%,牙齿移动占64.9%,磨牙关系改正中骨性因素占51.6%,牙性因素占48.4%.结论:Forsus推杆矫治器是一种简便可行的固定功能矫治器,对安氏Ⅱ 类错(牙合)能产生较显著的生长改良作用.     

Forsus推杆矫治器的原理及临床应用

目的 探讨Forsus推杆矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)的临床效果.方法 应用Forsus推杆矫治器治疗17例安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)患者,治疗前治疗后进行头影测量分析.结果 17例患者治疗后SNA平均减小0.87°, SNB平均增加2.93°, 4～6个月使安氏Ⅱ类错(牙合)达到Ⅰ类磨牙关系.结论 Forsus推杆矫治器在矫治过程中不妨碍口腔基本功能,装配简便,是一种有效的Ⅱ类错(牙合)固定功能矫治器.     

Bionator矫治器矫治Ⅱ类1分类错(牙合)的软硬组织变化

目的：研究Bionator矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类1分类下颌后缩骨性错[牙合]的效果。方法：对12例患儿矫治前后软硬组织变化行x线头影测量分析。结果：①Bionator矫治器对上颌骨生长无明显的抑制作用；②使用Bionator矫治器可使下颌体及下颌升支长度明显增长，使下颌生长方向有利于软硬组织侧貌面型的改善；③Bionator矫治器可减少安氏Ⅱ类1分类骨性错[牙合]患者的上前牙唇向倾斜，上下前后牙槽高度均增加。结论：Bionator矫治器对安氏Ⅱ类1分类下颌后缩的骨性错[牙合]有较好的治疗效果。     

MBT直丝弓矫治器与SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩错[牙合]12例报告

目的：采用MBT直丝弓矫治器与SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩错[牙合]畸形,观察其临床疗效。方法：对12例安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩错胎病例应用MBT直丝弓矫治器常规排齐整平上下牙列,再装配SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器进行矫治,对治疗前后面[牙合]像及头颅侧位定位片进行分析。结果：SNB增加2．2°,ANB减少2．5°,SNA无明显变化,前牙覆盖减小4．4ram,MP-FH增加1．2°,NP-FH增加1．6°。结论：用MBT直丝弓矫治器与SUS^2下颌前伸矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩错[牙合]畸形可以有效地利用下颌骨向前生长的潜力,刺激下颌骨的生长,抑制上颌骨的生长,同时可以使上颌磨牙远中移动,下颌磨牙近中移动,改善骨性及牙性矢状关系不调,从而达到矫治Ⅱ类错[牙合]的目的,取得明显的骨骼和侧貌改变。     

Frankel和Forsus功能矫治器治疗骨性Ⅱ类错的临床对比研究

目的探讨Frankel和Forsus功能矫治器治疗骨性Ⅱ类错的临床疗效。方法选择使用Frankel和Forsus功能矫治器治疗成功的20例骨性Ⅱ类错患者为研究对象。随机分成两组,每组10例患者。在治疗前后对每位患者拍摄X线头颅侧位片,对其治疗前后的X线头影测量值进行比较。结果矢状向关系上ANB角、SNB角、OJ、GO-GN、CO-GN、L1-MP的变化具有统计学意义,垂直向关系上N-ME、ANS-ME、S-GO的变化具有统计学意义;Forsus组患者下前牙的唇倾度（L1-MP）和刺激下颌骨生长的作用更明显。结论 Activator和Forsus功能矫治器对骨性Ⅱ类错具有相似的矫治机制,但Forsus矫治器对下前牙的唇倾和下颌的矫形作用更显著。     

Pancherz分析法评价Forsus矫治器治疗发育高峰期下颌后缩畸形的临床疗效

目的观察Forsus矫治器对生长发育高峰期下颌后缩患者牙、、颌面结构的影响。方法应用Forsus矫治器对15例生长发育高峰期的下颌后缩患者进行治疗,采取Pancherz二类错矫正分析方法结合传统测量项目分析治疗前后头颅侧位片。结果下颌体长度增加3.84mm,ANB角减小3.68°,SNB角增加3.20°,覆盖减少5.02mm,磨牙矢状方向改善4.62mm,有显著性差异,且表现为主要的骨性改变和部分的牙性改变。结论 Pancherz分析法可以明确反映下颌后缩患者治疗后颌面部组织在矢状方向上的变化;Forsus矫治器对青春生长发育高峰期患者有明显的下颌骨矫形效果,能促进下颌生长发育,有效地改善覆盖和磨牙关系。     

Forsus和Frnkel-Ⅱ治疗下颌后缩畸形的临床对比研究

目的:比较Forsus(F)和Frnkel-Ⅱ(FR-Ⅱ)2种功能矫治器对生长发育高峰期下颌后缩患者牙颌面结构的影响。方法:按纳入标准选取32例患者,随机分成F组与FR组,分别采用Forsus和Frnkel-Ⅱ进行治疗。以矫治前后的X线头影测量片评价其疗效,并进行对比。结果:2种功能性矫治器都能促进下颌骨生长,增加下颌骨长度;FR-Ⅱ对上颌骨有一定抑制作用,与F组相比差异有显著性(P<0.01);2种功能矫治器产生下前牙唇倾量以F组更多,2组间差异存在显著性。结论:Forsus、FR-Ⅱ对青春生长发育高峰患者都有明显的下颌骨矫形效果;Forsus矫治器适用于下颌发育不足、上颌发育正常且下前牙较为直立的Ⅱ类患者,Frnkel-Ⅱ则适用于伴有上下切牙牙轴较前倾、上颌正常或轻度前突的下颌后缩患者。     

Pancherz分析法评价两种功能矫治器治疗安氏Ⅱ^1类错殆患者的效果

目的应用Pancherz分析法评价Dynamax、固定斜面导板治疗生长发育期Ⅱ1类错袷的临床效果．方法应用Dynamax矫治器（D组）、固定斜面导板（G组）联合固定矫治器分别对15例安氏Ⅱ1类错袷患者进行功能性矫治8一12个月,治疗前后摄头颅侧位片,应用Pancherz法进行头影测量分析,两组结果比较采用t检验。结果两组下颌骨均显著生长,治疗前后Pg/OLP、ii／OLP、mi／OLP、is／OLP．ii／OLP、ms／OLP—mi／OLP均有明显改变。前牙覆盖明显减小,D组骨性因素占52．3％,牙性因素占47．7％。G组骨性因素占34．9％,牙性因素占65．1％。磨牙关系明显改善,D组骨性因素占93．9％,牙性因素占6．1％。G组骨性因素占74．4％,牙性因素占25．6％。结论两种功能矫治器矫治Ⅱ1类错袷均可促进下颌骨生长,改善覆盖和磨牙关系。应用Pancherz法分析前牙覆盖及磨牙关系,Dynamax矫治器表现出相对较多的骨性变化。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Forsus与口外弓矫治生长发育高峰期安氏Ⅱ^1错殆的比较研究

目的：评估生长发育期安氏Ⅱ。错胎非拔牙矫治中Forsus联合固定矫治器应用的临床疗效。方法：选择46名生长发育高峰期安氏IIt错胎不拔牙患者，随机分为两组，分别采用直丝弓矫治器配合Forsus或口外弓、颌间Ⅱ类牵引进行治疗，选择21例作为生长发育对照组。对矫治前（TI期）和治疗后（T2期）进行头影测量分析，使用单因素方差分析比较T1期3组病例各项测量值差异，以及组间治疗前后各测量值的差值，并对两治疗组间矫治疗程进行t检验。结果：Forsus组ANB、Wits值减小明显，上下颌骨长度差值增大显著。两治疗组下颌骨向前生长明显，Co-Go增加；两组病例均出现上前牙舌倾、伸长，下前牙唇倾，下颌第一磨牙近中移动，口外弓组更明显。Forsus组疗程明显短于口外弓组。结论：对生长发育高峰期安氏Ⅱ^1错胎患者，Forsus矫治器可成为代替口外弓、Ⅱ类牵引有效的治疗方法。     

BOS MOrth cases prize 2008

Abstract

This paper describes the clinical orthodontic treatment of two cases that were successfully entered for the 2008 intercollegiate MOrth cases prize. The first case describes the management of a 12‐year‐old female with an increased overjet treated using a Dynamax functional appliance followed by fixed appliances. The second case involves the management of a class II division I malocclusion complicated by an unerupted maxillary central incisor and a mandibular first molar of poor prognosis.