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.     

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.     

Dentoskeletal effects produced by a Jasper Jumper with an anterior bite plane

Objective:The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the dentoskeletal effects produced by a modified Jasper Jumper with an anterior bite plane for the correction of Class II division 1 malocclusion.Materials and Methods:A sample of 32 growing patients (mean age  =  11.9 ± 1.4 years) with Class II division 1 malocclusion and increased overbite were treated with a modified Jasper Jumper (JJ) and anterior bite plane protocol and compared with a matched control group of 30 subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion (mean age 12.2 ± 0.8 years). Lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment (T1) and at the end of comprehensive treatment (T2). Mean treatment duration was 2.1 ± 0.4 years. The T1–T2 changes in the two groups were compared with Student’s t-tests for independent samples.Results:The JJ group was successfully treated to a Class I occlusal relationship with a significant reduction in overjet (–3.9 mm, P < .001) and overbite (–3.1 mm, P < .001). The JJ group exhibited a significant increase in mandibular length and a significant improvement in maxillomandibular sagittal skeletal relationships. The lower incisors were significantly proclined, while the lower first molars demonstrated significant movement in a mesial direction.Conclusions:Use of a modified JJ appliance and anterior bite plane is an effective protocol for the treatment of Class II malocclusion with increased overbite and greater skeletal (75%) than dentoalveolar (25%) effects mainly at the mandibular level.     

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 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.     

Chin cup effects using two different force magnitudes in the management of Class III malocclusions

Objectives:To evaluate the dental and skeletal effects of chin cup using two different force magnitudes in the management of Class III malocclusion cases.Materials and Methods:Fifty growing patients (26 males and 24 females) with skeletal Class III and mandibular prognathism were selected. The patients were divided into three groups. Patients in group 1 (n  =  20) were treated with a chin cup and occlusal bite plane using 600 g of force per side. Patients in group 2 (n  =  20) were subjected to the same treatment as in group 1 but using 300 g of force per side. In group 3 (n  =  10) no treatment was performed. For all patients, lateral cephalograms were taken before treatment and after 1 year. Cephalograms were traced and analyzed. The collected data were analyzed statistically using one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test.Results:In the treatment groups, the SNB angle and ramus height decreased significantly. The ANB angle, Wits appraisal, anterior facial height, mandibular plane angle, and retroclination of the mandibular incisors were significantly increased in comparison to the control group. Utilization of either force showed no significant differences, except that the reduction in the ramus height was significantly greater with the use of higher force.Conclusions:The use of a chin cup improved the maxillomandibular base relationship in growing patients with Class III malocclusion but with little skeletal effect. The utilization of either force had the same effects, except that the higher force had a more pronounced effect in reduction of ramus height.     

Comparative study of the Fr?nkel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the dentoalveolar and skeletal cephalometric changes produced by the Fr?nkel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in persons with Class II malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms were available for 66 patients of both sexes, who were divided into 3 groups of 22. The control group included untreated Class II children, with an initial mean age of 8 years 7 months; they were followed without treatment for 13 months. The FR-2 appliance group had an initial mean age of 9 years; those children were treated for a mean period of 17 months. The bionator group initially had a mean age of 10 years 8 months; on average, they were treated for 16 months. The results demonstrated no significant changes in maxillary growth during the evaluation period. Both appliances showed statistically significant increases in mandibular growth and mandibular protrusion, with greater increases in patients treated in the bionator group. Both experimental groups showed an improvement in the maxillomandibular relationship. There were no significant changes in growth direction, while the bionator group had a greater increase in posterior facial height. Both appliances produced similar labial tipping and protrusion of the lower incisors, lingual inclination, retrusion of the upper incisors, and a significant increase in mandibular posterior dentoalveolar height. The major treatment effects of bionator and FR-2 appliances were dentoalveolar, with a smaller, but significant, skeletal effect.     

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.     

Mode of correction is related to treatment timing in Class II patients treated with the mandibular advancement locking unit (MALU) appliance

Objective:To investigate the proportion of skeletal/dentoalveolar components for correction of Class II malocclusion in relation to the pubertal growth peak (PGP) among patients treated with the mandibular advancement locking unit (MALU) appliance.Materials and Methods:We conducted a retrospective study of 27 orthodontic patients (age range: 12–18 years; mean age 14.9 years) with skeletal Class II Division 1 malocclusion who were treated with the MALU appliance until they reached Class I occlusion with overjet and overbite within normal range. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were analyzed using standard cephalometrics and sagittal occlusion analysis to assess changes in the dentoalveolar and skeletal complex. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method was used to determine participants'' skeletal maturation in T1 cephalograms. Based on this maturation, participants were divided into two groups: the peak group (treatment initiation before or during PGP [peak group, n=15]) or the postpeak group (treatment initiation after the PGP [n = 12]).Results:No significant differences between groups were found at T1 for most of the skeletal and dental parameters investigated. At T2, the mean ANB angle and proclination of the mandibular incisors were significantly smaller in the peak group than in the postpeak group. In the peak group, skeletal correction comprised 54% and dental correction 46% of the total change at T2, while in the postpeak group the corresponding figures were 24% and 76%, respectively.Conclusions:Treatment initiated before or during PGP seems to result in a more favorable SNA/SNB relationship and less tipping of the mandibular incisors than when treatment is initiated after PGP.     

Long-term skeletal and dental effects and treatment timing for functional appliances in Class II malocclusion

Objective:To analyze the long-term skeletal and dentoalveolar effects and to evaluate treatment timing of Class II treatment with functional appliances followed by fixed appliances.Materials and Methods:A group of 40 patients (22 females and 18 males) with Class II malocclusion consecutively treated either with a Bionator or an Activator followed by fixed appliances was compared with a control group of 20 subjects (9 females and 11 males) with untreated Class II malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms were available at the start of treatment (mean age 10 years), end of treatment with functional appliances (mean age 12 years), and long-term observation (mean age 18.6 years). The treated sample also was divided into two groups according to skeletal maturity. The early-treatment group was composed of 20 subjects (12 females and 8 males) treated before puberty, while the late-treatment group included 20 subjects (10 females and 10 males) treated at puberty. Statistical comparisons were performed with analysis of variance followed by Tukey''s post hoc tests.Results:Significant long-term mandibular changes (Co-Gn) in the treated group (3.6 mm over the controls) were associated with improvements in the skeletal sagittal intermaxillary relationship, overjet, and molar relationship (∼3.0–3.5 mm). Treatment during the pubertal peak was able to produce significantly greater increases in total mandibular length (4.3 mm) and mandibular ramus height (3.1 mm) associated with a significant advancement of the bony chin (3.9 mm) when compared with treatment before puberty.Conclusion:Treatment of Class II malocclusion with functional appliances appears to be more effective at puberty.     

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.     

Comparison between direct vs indirect anchorage in two miniscrew-supported distalizing devices

Objective:To compare two distalizing devices supported by palatal miniscrews, the MGBM System (MGBM) and the Distal Screw appliance (DS), in dental Class II patients.Materials and Methods:Pretreatment (T1) and postdistalization (T2) lateral cephalograms of 53 Class II malocclusion subjects were examined. MGBM consisted of 29 patients (16 males, 13 females) with a mean pretreatment age of 12.3 ± 1.5 years; DS consisted of 24 patients (11 males, 13 females) with a mean pretreatment age of 11.3 ± 1.2 years. The mean distalization time was 6 ± 2 months for MGBM and 9 ± 2 months for DS. Initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a Student’s t-test.Results:Maxillary superimpositions showed that the maxillary first molar distalized an average of 5.5 mm in the MGBM and 3.2 mm in the DS between T1 and T2; distal molar tipping was greater in the MGBM (10.3°) than in the DS (3.0°). First premolar showed a mean mesial movement of 1.4 mm, with a mesial tipping of 4.4° in the MGBM; on the contrary, first premolar showed a distal movement of 2.2 mm, with a distal tipping of 6.2°, in the DS.Conclusions:The MGBM system resulted in greater distal molar movement and less treatment time, resulting in more efficient movement than was associated with the DS; DS showed less molar tipping during distalization.     

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.     

Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with Twin Force Bite Corrector

Objective:To compare the dentoskeletal effects and treatment efficiency of the Twin Force Bite Corrector (TFBC) appliance in Class II correction of patients treated before or after the pubertal growth spurt.Materials and Methods:Forty-one normodivergent Class II patients treated with the TFBC appliance were divided into two groups based on their cervical vertebral maturation stage (CVMS). Group 1 (G1) consisted of 23 patients (mean age 12.44 ± 1.59 years) where treatment was initiated before the pubertal growth spurt (CVMS I and II), while group 2 (G2) consisted of 18 patients (mean age 13.76 ± 1.44 years) where treatment was started after the pubertal growth spurt (CVMS III to V). Dentoskeletal measurements were made on lateral cephalograms taken before (T1) and after orthodontic treatment (T2).Results:During treatment, G1 had significantly greater skeletal correction than G2, with more dentoalveolar effects being observed in G2 than G1. However, on comparing both groups at the end of treatment (T2) when growth is complete, no differences in the parameters measured were observed. Overall, treatment time was significantly longer for G1 (3.67 ± 1.45 years) compared to G2 (2.75 ± 1.07 years).Conclusions:There is no difference in overall dentoskeletal effects obtained at the end of treatment by the TFBC appliance in normodivergent prepubertal vs postpubertal patients. However, treatment efficiency based on treatment timing is significantly greater for the postpubertal group.     

A prospective controlled evaluation of Class II division 1 malocclusions treated with fixed lingual mandibular growth modificator

Objective: To assess the net dentofacial effects of the fixed lingual mandibular growth modificator (FLMGM).Materials and Methods:The study sample comprised 38 patients with Class II/1 malocclusion and retrognathic mandible. All were in the pubertal growth spurt. Whereas FLMGM was applied to the treatment group (n  =  21, mean age  =  13.2 years), no treatment was performed on the control group (n  =  17, mean age  =  12.5 years). Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes were assessed on digital lateral cephalograms obtained at the beginning and end of the treatment/observation period of 8 months. Paired and independent t-tests were used to assess the differences within and between groups.Results:Maxillary growth was not affected by FLMGM treatment, which resulted in a significant overjet reduction of 4.1 mm, an increase in total mandibular length (Co-Gn) of 2.3 mm, chin advancement of 1.6°, and upper incisor retroclination of 4.0°. A reduction of 2.4° in ANB was largely due to an increase of 1.8° in SNB. Favorably, the lower incisors were obviously retroclined by 4.5°. The changes in the vertical skeletal relationships were negligible.Conclusion:FLMGM was effective in treating growing Class II/1 patients and produced favorable dentofacial effects, with the matched untreated sample showing minimal changes. Lower incisor retroclination was a benefit of FLMGM treatment.     

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.     

Comparison of two implant-supported molar distalization systems

Objective:To examine skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of the Miniscrew Implant Supported Distalization System (MISDS) and the Bone-Anchored Pendulum Appliance (BAPA).Materials and Methods:Among 28 patients displaying Angle Class II malocclusion, 14 patients with a mean age of 14.8 ± 3.6 years treated with MISDS were included in the first group, and 14 patients with a mean age of 14.5 ± 1.5 years treated with BAPA were included in the second group. The pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed. Statistical evaluation was carried out using the paired Shapiro-Wilk test, the paired-sample t-test, and the unpaired t-test.Results:Upper posterior teeth were distalized successfully in both groups. Nearly bodily distalization was seen in the MISDS group, whereas significant distal tipping of the upper first molars was observed in the BAPA group (P < .001). There were no statistically significant changes in the sagittal position of the maxilla and mandible and in the position of the upper incisors as a result of treatment in either group.Conclusions:Both methods provided absolute anchorage for distalization of posterior teeth; however, almost translatory distal movement was encountered in the MISDS group, and substantial distal tipping of the maxillary molars accompanied distalization in the BAPA group.     

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 effects produced by Fränkel appliance in patients with class II,division 1 malocclusion

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the dentoalveolar and skeletal cephalometric changes produced by the Fr?nkel appliance in individuals with a Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Lateral cephalograms of 44 patients of both sexes were divided in two groups of 22 each. The control group was comprised of untreated Class II children with an initial mean age of eight years and seven months who were followed without treatment for a period of 13 months. The Fr?nkel group had an initial mean age of nine years and was treated for a mean period of 17 months. Lateral cephalometric headfilms of each patient were obtained at the beginning and end of treatment. The Fr?nkel appliance produced no significant changes in maxillary growth during the evaluation period, while a statistically significant increase in mandibular length was observed. The maxillomandibular relationship improved mostly because of an increase in mandibular length. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in the craniofacial growth direction between the Fr?nkel and the control group, both showing a slight downward rotation of the palatal plane. The Fr?nkel appliance produced a labial tipping of the lower incisors and a lingual inclination of the upper incisors as well as a significant increase in mandibular posterior dentoalveolar height. It was concluded that the main effects of the Fr?nkel appliance during this time period were mostly dentoalveolar with a smaller but significant skeletal mandibular effect.     

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.