Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage
- PMID: 23772682
- PMCID: PMC8683057
- DOI: 10.2319/032613-240.1
Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage
Erratum in
- Angle Orthod. 2014 Mar;84(2):383
Abstract
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.
Figures
Comment in
-
Re: Aslan BI, Kucukkaraca E, Turkoz C, Dincer M. Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014;84:76-87.Angle Orthod. 2014 Sep;84(5):933. doi: 10.2319/0003-3219-84.5.933. Angle Orthod. 2014. PMID: 25171582 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
RE: response to: treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014;84:76-87.Angle Orthod. 2014 Sep;84(5):934. doi: 10.2319/0003-3219-84.5.934. Angle Orthod. 2014. PMID: 25171583 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- O'Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, et al. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or Twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:128–137. - PubMed
-
- Ruf S, Pancherz H. Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions in early and late adulthood. A prospective cephalometric study of consecutively treated subjects. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:352–360. - PubMed
-
- Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger JL, Chermak DS, Kaczynski R, Simon ES, Haerian A. Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance on patients with Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123:286–295. - PubMed
-
- Karacay S, Akın E, Olmez H, Gurton AU, Sagdıc D. Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring and Jasper Jumper corrections of Class II division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:666–672. - PubMed
-
- Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus fatigue resistant device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:332–338. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
