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.     

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.     

Patient experiences with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device

Objective:To investigate patients'' experiences with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD).Methods:This was a survey focused on patient''s comprehensive experience with FFRD, both initially and after several months of wear, including the patient''s overall impression of the appliance. The survey was administered to 70 patients wearing FFRD in both university and private practice settings.Results:A high percentage (81.5%) reported a neutral to favorable experience with FFRD; 89.8% reported growing accustomed to the appliance within 4 weeks. The majority of those who had previously worn rubber bands found FFRD to be “easier.” Cheek irritation was the most serious side effect (about 50%). Cheek irritation and other negative effects generally decreased over time.Conclusions:The FFRD is relatively well accepted by patients. Most patients experience some discomfort and functional limitations; however, the effect generally diminishes with time, and patients adapt to the appliance. Practitioners should be especially vigilant about problems with cheek irritation.     

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.     

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.     

Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant–anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Objective:To detect three-dimensionally the effects of using mini-implant anchorage with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD).Materials and Methods:The sample comprised 43 skeletal Class II females with deficient mandibles. They were randomly allocated into three groups: 16 patients (13.25 ± 1.12 years) received FFRD alone (Forsus group), 15 subjects (13.07 ± 1.41 years) received FFRD and mini-implants (FMI group), and 12 subjects (12.71 ± 1.44 years) were in the untreated control group. Three-dimensional analyses of cone beam computed tomographic images were completed, and the data were statistically analyzed.Results:Class I relationship and overjet correction were achieved in 88% of the cases. None of the two treatment groups showed significant mandibular skeletal effects. In the FMI group, significant headgear effect, decrease in maxillary width, and increase in the lower facial height were noted. In the FMI group, retroclination of maxillary incisors and distalization of maxillary molars were significantly higher. Proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors were significantly greater in the Forsus group.Conclusions:FFRD resulted in Class II correction mainly through dentoalveolar effects and with minimal skeletal effects. Utilization of mini-implant anchorage effectively reduced the unfavorable proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors but did not produce additional skeletal effects.     

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.     

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.     

Breakages using a unilateral fixed functional appliance: a case report using The ForsusTM Fatigue Resistant Device

Abstract

Fixed functional appliances are designed to provide a simple non-compliant solution to orthodontic Class II treatment. Molar correction can be achieved very quickly using these appliances, but the clinician should be wary of unexpected breakages. This case report documents such an occurrence using a unilateral fixed functional appliance.     

Treatment and posttreatment effects induced by the Forsus appliance: A controlled clinical study

Objective:To evaluate treatment and posttreatment dentoskeletal effects induced by the Forsus device (FRD) in growing patients with Class II malocclusion in a retrospective controlled clinical study.Materials and Methods:Thirty-six Class II patients (mean [SD] age 12.3 [1.2] years) were treated consecutively with the FRD protocol and compared with a sample of 20 subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion (mean [SD] age 12.2 [0.9] years). Lateral cephalograms were taken at the beginning of treatment, at the end of comprehensive treatment (after 2.3 ± 0.4 years), and at a postretention period (after 2.3 ± 1.1 years from the end of comprehensive treatment). Statistical comparisons were carried out with the unpaired t-test and Benjamini-Hochberg correction (P < .05).Results:After comprehensive treatment, the FRD sample showed a significant restriction of the sagittal maxillary growth together with a significant correction in overjet, overbite, and molar relationship. During the overall observation interval, the FRD group exhibited no significant sagittal or vertical skeletal changes, while significant improvements were recorded in overjet (−3.8 mm), overbite (−1.5 mm), and molar relationship (+3.7 mm).Conclusion:The FRD protocol was effective in correcting Class II malocclusion mainly at the dentoalveolar level when evaluated 2 years after the end of comprehensive treatment.     

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.     

应用Forsus矫治器后患者的临床反应的问卷调查分析

目的: 观察配戴Forsus矫治器后患者的临床反应。方法: 通过调查问卷, 观察64例配戴Forsus矫治器的患者初始以及带入后数月的临床反应。结果: 83.7%的患者配戴Forsus矫治器后感觉良好, 85.4%认为在配戴矫治器后4周慢慢适应, 最严重的副作用是对脸部的刺激(52%)。随着配戴Forsus矫治器时间的延长, 其脸颊刺激和其他不适感觉慢慢消失。结论: Forsus矫治器是一种患者容易接受的功能矫治器。起初, 大多数患者会经历一些不适感;但随着戴入时间的延长而逐渐适应。配戴过程中出现的脸颊红肿等问题, 应引起足够的重视。     

Forsus矫治器治疗恒牙初期安氏Ⅱ类错的临床疗效

目的探讨Forsus矫治器的治疗对安氏Ⅱ类错硬组织变化的影响。方法临床选择恒牙初期的安氏Ⅱ类错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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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可以产生一定的生长改良作用。     

改良式Forsus矫治器两种前伸下颌方式的疗效比较

目的：比较改良式Forsus矫治器两种前伸下颌方式矫治安氏Ⅱ类下颌后缩病例所引起的髁突生长和下颌位置的变化。方法：应用改良式Forsus矫治器对19例安氏Ⅱ类男性患者采用逐步前伸下颌和跳跃性前伸下颌两种前伸下颌的方式进行功能性矫治,并在治疗前后拍摄头颅侧位片,采用SPSS12.0统计软件对测量结果进行配对t检验。结果：逐步前伸组比跳跃性前伸组获得了更多的髁状突矢状向生长量（1.3±1.2）mm和下颌骨前移量（1.4±1.8）mm,具有统计学差异（P＆lt;0.05）。逐步前伸组患者的下颌平面角明显减小（-0.08°±1.1°）,P＆lt;0.05。前下面高度的增加在两组间的差异有统计学意义（P＆lt;0.05）。结论：前伸下颌的方式可影响髁突的生长量和生长方向,从而引起不同程度的下颌骨向前生长。     

Forsus和Dynamax矫治器对下颌骨生长改形的效果比较

目的比较Forsus矫治器与Dynamax矫治器对下颌骨形态的影响。方法选择30例治疗成功的骨性Ⅱ类错[牙合]患者,15例采用Forsus矫治器治疗,15例采用Dynamax矫治器治疗,以矫治前后的X线头影测量片评价其疗效,并进行对比。结果两种矫治器均能明显增加下颌骨长度,但Dynamax矫治器对下颌平面角的影响更大。结论在选择两种矫治器矫治骨性Ⅱ类错[牙合]患者时应考虑患者的下颌角因素。     

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.     

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.     

Asymmetric dental arch treatment with Forsus fatigue appliances: Long-term results

Objectives:To investigate the treatment efficacy and follow-up stability of the asymmetric Forsus appliance by evaluating longitudinal changes in dental arch asymmetry on digital dental models from 21 patients.Materials and Methods:Maxillary and mandibular reference lines were used for measurements of intra-arch asymmetry at pretreatment (T1), posttreatment (T2), and 4.2 years after treatment (T3). Maxillary and mandibular measurements were performed relative to the dental midline and anterior reference line on digital dental models. To determine the amount of asymmetry between the Class I and Class II sides of a given arch, all maxillary and mandibular parameters were measured on each side of the model separately. Repeated-measures analysis of variance/paired sample t-tests were performed to evaluate dental arch asymmetries at the P < .05 level.Results:The alveolar transverse dimensions of the posterior segment of both arches were increased during treatment (P < .05) and remained stable during the retention period. Class II subdivision malocclusion was caused by distal positioning of the mandibular canine, premolars, and first molar on the Class II side (P < .05). Asymmetry was resolved by treatment with asymmetric Forsus appliances. The resolved asymmetry remained stable over the long term. There were no significant differences between T2 and T3 (P > .05).Conclusions:The asymmetric Forsus appliance can be used to treat dental arch asymmetry in patients with Class II subdivision malocclusions.     

A comparison of the effects of Forsus appliances with and without temporary anchorage devices for skeletal Class II malocclusion:: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo compare the effects of Forsus appliances with and without temporary anchorage devices (TADs) for patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion.Materials and MethodsThrough a predefined search strategy, electronic searching was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and SIGLE with no language restrictions. Eligible study selection, data extraction, and evaluation of risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration tool) were conducted by two authors independently and in duplicate. Any disagreement was solved by discussion or judged by a third reviewer. Statistical pooling, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and assessment of small-study effects were conducted by using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Stata 12.0. Heterogeneity was analyzed for different types of study designs, TADs, and radiographic examinations.ResultsElectronic search yielded a total of 256 studies after removing duplicates. Among them, six studies were finally included. All articles were of high quality. The pooled mean differences were –0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.59, 0.05) for SNA, 0.58 (95% CI: –0.07, 1.23) for SNB, –0.86 (95% CI: –1.74, –0.03) for ANB, 1.63 (95% CI: 0.46, 2.80) for Co-Po, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.28, 1.23) for SN-MP, –7.56 (95% CI: –11.37, –3.76) for L1-MP, 0.47 (95% CI: –0.98, 1.91) for overjet, 0.39 (95% CI: –0.57, 1.35) for overbite, –1.84 (95% CI: −5.15, 1.47) for SN-OP, and 4.97 (95% CI: –1.22, 11.17) for nasolabial angle.ConclusionsTADs (especially miniplates) were able to eliminate dental adverse effects of Forsus appliances for correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion.     

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。