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.     

The Class II Carriere Motion appliance:: A 3D CBCT evaluation of the effects on the dentition

ObjectivesTo determine three-dimensional treatment changes produced by the Class II Carriere Motion appliance (CMA) in Class II adolescent patients with Class I and Class II skeletal relationships.Materials and MethodsThe sample included 59 adolescents (16 boys and 43 girls) with unilateral or bilateral Class II molar and bilateral Class II canine relationship. They were divided into group 1 with skeletal Class I (N = 27; ANB 2.90° ± 1.40°; 13.30 ± 1.53 years) and group 2 with skeletal Class II (N = 32; ANB 6.06° ± 1.64°; 13.26 ± 1.76 years). Cone beam computed tomography images were traced with Invivo software pretreatment (T1) and post-CMA usage (T2). The treatment changes in 36 measurements were calculated in each group, and the changes in 16 measurements were compared between them.ResultsIn group 1 and 2, maxillary first molars underwent significant distal movement (1.92 mm ± 0.80 mm and 1.67 mm ± 1.56 mm, respectively) with distal tipping and rotation, maxillary canines underwent significant distal movement (2.34 mm ± 1.07 mm and 2.24 mm ± 1.91 mm, respectively) with distal tipping and rotation, and mandibular molars underwent significant mesial movement (–1.37 mm ± 1.23 mm and –2.51 mm ± 1.51 mm, respectively) with mesial tipping. Between the groups, there were significant differences in mandibular molar mesial movement and the U1-SN changes (P < .05).ConclusionsThe CMA corrected Class II malocclusion through distal tipping and rotational movement of maxillary canines and molars and corrected mesial tipping of mandibular molars. Significantly more mandibular molar mesial movement and maxillary incisor flaring were observed in patients with skeletal Class II.     

Upper airway changes after Xbow appliance therapy evaluated with cone beam computed tomography

Objective:To determine the treatment effects of the Xbow appliance on the upper airway dimensions and volume using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT); to evaluate the cephalometric changes in the skeletal and dental structures of the skeletal Class II patients.Materials and Methods:The sample consisted of 25 Class II patients (11 male, 14 female) with a mean age of 11.1 ± 1.1 years. CBCT images were obtained at the beginning of the treatment (T0) and after the debonding of the Xbow (T1).Results:Changes in superior, middle, and inferior parts of the oropharynx in the retroglossal region and changes in the oropharyngeal airway volume were statistically significant (P < .05, P < .01). The differences favoring the Xbow for the changes in the direction of Class II correction included SNA, SNB, ANB, maxillary depth angles, and point A-NPg and Co-B distances. Data of the dental parameters showed palatal tipping and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping of the mandibular incisors, and mesial movement and extrusion of the mandibular molars.Conclusions:Treatment with the Xbow appliance in Class II patients resulted in favorable increase in the oropharyngeal airway dimensions and volume. Further studies with larger study samples and with control groups are needed.     

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.     

Three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography comparison of shorty and standard Class II Carriere Motion appliance

ObjectivesTo compare treatment effects of the standard and shorty Class II Carriere Motion appliances (CMAs) on adolescent patients.Materials and MethodsFifty adolescents with Class II malocclusion formed group 1, who were treated with shorty CMA (n = 25, 12.66 ± 1.05 years), and age- and sex–matched group 2, who were treated with standard CMA (n = 25, 12.73 ± 1.07 years). Treatment effects were analyzed by tracing with Invivo software to compare pretreatment (T1) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images with post-CMA (T2) CBCT images. A total of 23 measurements were compared within and between groups.ResultsIn groups 1 and 2, maxillary first molars showed significant distal movement from T1 to T2 (1.83 ± 2.11 mm and 2.14 ± 1.34 mm, respectively), with distal tipping and rotation in group 1 (6.52° ± 3.99° and 3.15° ± 7.52°, respectively) but only distal tipping (7.03° ± 3.45°) in group 2. Similarly, in both groups, the maxillary first premolars experienced significant distal movement with distal tipping but no significant rotation. In group 1, maxillary canines did not undergo significant distal movement. In both groups 1 and 2, mandibular first molars experienced significant mesial movement (1.85 ± 1.88 mm and 2.44 ± 2.02 mm, respectively). Group 1 showed statistically significantly less reduction in overjet and less canine distal movement with less distal tipping than group 2 (α < .05).ConclusionsThe shorty CMA achieved Class II correction similarly to the standard CMA, with less change in overjet and distal tipping movement of the maxillary canines.     

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.     

Prospective study of dentoskeletal changes in Class II division malocclusion treatment with twin force bite corrector

Objective:To evaluate the dentoskeletal changes of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Twin Force Bite Corrector (TFBC).Materials and Methods:The sample comprised 86 lateral cephalograms obtained from 43 subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion; the subjects were divided into two groups. The experimental group comprised 23 patients with a mean initial age of 12.11 years who were treated with the TFBC for a mean period of 2.19 years. The control group included 40 lateral cephalograms from 20 Class II nontreated patients, with an initial mean age of 12.55 years and a mean observation period of 2.19 years. The lateral cephalograms were evaluated before and after orthodontic treatment in group 1 and in the beginning and end of the observation period in group 2. t-Tests were used to compare the initial and final cephalometric characteristics of the groups as well as the amount of change.Results:The experimental group presented greater maxillary growth restriction and mandibular retrusion than the control group, as well as greater maxillomandibular relationship improvement and greater labial tipping of the mandibular incisors. The results also showed a greater decrease in overbite and overjet in the experimental group, and there were no statistically significant differences in the craniofacial growth pattern between groups.Conclusions:The TFBC promotes restriction of anterior maxillary displacement without significant changes in mandibular length and position and improvement of maxillomandibular relationship without changes in facial growth and significant buccal tipping of mandibular incisors. Class II correction with the TFBC occurred primarily as a result of dentoalveolar changes.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

Long-term stability of miniscrew anchored maxillary molar distalization in Class II treatment

ObjectiveTo investigate treatment stability of miniscrew-anchored maxillary distalization in Class II malocclusion.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study included a distalization (n = 19) and a control (n = 19) group; a patient group with minor corrections served the control. Lateral cephalograms of 38 adult patients were taken before (T0), immediately after (T1), and 3–4 years after (T2) treatment. Horizontal and vertical movement and tipping of the maxillary first molars (U6) and central incisors (U1) were measured along with skeletal craniofacial parameters at three time points to compare the two groups regarding the achieved treatment effects and their stability.ResultsTotal arch distalization therapy led to 4.2 mm of distal movement of U6 without distal crown tipping (0.6° of axis change) and 3.3° of occlusal plane steepening. Over an average retention period of 42 months, maxillary total arch distalization provided high stability of treatment results, showing the same amount of mesial movement (0.7 mm) as the control group.ConclusionsIn Class II treatment, miniscrew-anchored maxillary total arch distalization can provide stable distal movement of the maxillary first molars and central incisors.     

Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance in patients with Class II skeletal malocclusions

Objective:To examine the changes produced by the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA) appliance and compare the treatment effects to an untreated Class II control group.Materials and Methods:Thirty consecutively treated patients were matched with an untreated control group. Lateral cephalograms were taken at T1, 5 months pre-MARA (CVMS 2.7); T2, immediately after MARA removal and prior to placement of full fixed edgewise appliances (CVMS 4.2); and T3, at least 2 years after MARA removal and completion of edgewise treatment (CVMS 5.4). The mean age of the MARA patients was 11.9 years for boys and 10.8 years for girls. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess if the samples were morphologically comparable at the outset and to test if there were significant differences between the groups for the various increments of change. Given a significant ANOVA, the source of the difference was explored via Tukey-Kramer tests.Results:Restriction of maxillary growth and no significant mandibular growth were observed with the MARA appliance. The Class II correction was obtained mainly by slight maxillary molar distalization and intrusion, in addition to mesial migration of the lower molars and flaring of the lower incisors. No vertical effect was observed with this appliance.Conclusion:The MARA appliance was effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusions. Restriction of maxillary growth and dentoalveolar changes in the maxillary and mandibular arches were responsible for the correction of the Class II malocclusion. Significant mandibular growth did not contribute to this correction.     

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 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.     

A comparison of treatment effects of total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plate vs buccal miniscrews

Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare the treatment effects of palatally vs buccally placed temporary anchorage devices.Materials and Methods:Of 40 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients, 22 were treated with modified C-palatal plate (MCPP) appliances (age 21.9 ± 6.6 years), and 18 (age 24.2 ± 6.8 years) were treated with buccally placed miniscrews between the maxillary first molar and second premolar. A total of 26 linear and angular measurements were analyzed on pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms. Multivariate analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the treatment effects within each group and to compare the effects between groups.Results:Overall, the MCPP appliances showed 4.2 mm of distalization, 1.6 mm of intrusion of the first molar with 2° tipping, and 0.8 mm extrusion of incisors. The miniscrew group resulted in 2.0 mm of distalization, 0.1 mm intrusion of the first molar with 7.2° tipping, and 0.3 mm of incisor extrusion. Regarding soft tissue change, in the MCPP group, the upper lip was significantly retracted (P < .001).Conclusions:Comparing the treatment effects between MCPP appliances and buccal miniscrews, the MCPP appliances showed greater distalization and intrusion with less distal tipping of the first molar and more extrusion of the incisor compared to the buccal miniscrews.     

Dental and skeletal effects after total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plate on hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II malocclusions in adolescents

ObjectivesTo compare the dental and skeletal treatment effects after total arch distalization using modified C-palatal plates (MCPPs) on adolescent patients with hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II malocclusion.Materials and MethodsThe study group included 40 patients with Class II malocclusion (18 boys and 22 girls, mean age = 12.2 ± 1.4 years) treated with MCPPs. Fixed orthodontic treatment started with the distalizing process in both groups. Participants were divided into hypo- or hyperdivergent groups based on their pretreatment Frankfort mandibular plane angle (FMA) ≤22° or ≥28°, respectively. Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were digitized, and 23 variables were measured and compared for both groups using paired and independent t-tests.ResultsThe hyper- and hypodivergent groups showed 2.7 mm and 4.3 mm of first molar crown distalizing movement, respectively (P < .001). The hypodivergent group had a slight 2.2° crown distal tipping of first molars compared with 0.3° in the hyperdivergent group. After distalization, the FMA increased 3.1° and 0.3°, in the hypodivergent and hyperdivergent groups, respectively (P < .001). SNA decreased in the hypodivergent group, while other skeletal variables presented no statistically significant differences in the changes between the groups.ConclusionsThe hypodivergent group showed more distal and tipping movement of the maxillary first molar and increased FMA than the hyperdivergent group. Therefore, clinicians must consider vertical facial types when distalizing molars using MCPPs in Class II nonextraction treatment.     

Treatment effects of a fixed intermaxillary device to correct class II malocclusions in growing patients

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment effects of Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) in growing patients with Class II non-extraction malocclusions.

Methods

A retrospective sample of 24 class II patients treated consecutively with the FRD followed by comprehensive orthodontic treatment was compared to a sample of untreated control subjects from the Bolton Brush Study who was matched in age, sex, and craniofacial morphology. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before treatment (T1) and after removal of fixed appliances (T2). Growth changes were subtracted from the treatment changes to obtain the treatment effects of the appliance. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and a match paired t test.

Results

Significant differences were found between the treated and control groups for 12 of the 29 measured variables (Co-Gn minus Co-Apt, Wits, Is-OLp, Ii-OLp, overjet, Mi-OLp, molar relationship, overbite, Mic-ML, SNA, ANB, and Ii-ML). With 27.8 months of treatment, all patients were corrected to a class I dental arch relationship. Overjet and molar relationships were improved by an average of 4.7 and 3.1 mm, respectively. This was contributed by a 1.2 mm of restraint in forward maxillary growth, 0.7 mm of forward movement of the mandible, 1.5 mm of backward movement of the maxillary incisors, 1.3 mm forward movement of the mandibular incisors, 0.5 mm backward movement of the maxillary molars, and 1.3 mm of forward movement of the mandibular molars. The overbite was decreased by 2 mm with no significant change in the occlusal, palatal, or mandibular plane. Individual variations in response to the FRD treatment were large for most of the parameters tested. Significant differences in treatment changes between male and female subjects were found only in a few parameters measured.

Conclusions

These results demonstrate that significant overjet and overbite corrections can be obtained with the Forsus FRD in conjunction with comprehensive orthodontic treatment.     

Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.

Methods

The sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.

Results

Their effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.

Conclusions

The effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.