Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 May;87(3):371-376.
doi: 10.2319/070216-518.1. Epub 2016 Oct 13.

Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics

Isil Aras, Aylin Pasaoglu
Randomized Controlled Trial

Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics

Isil Aras et al. Angle Orthod. 2017 May.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Class II subdivision; Fixed functional appliance; Intermaxillary elastics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Application of elastics on (A) Class II side and (B) Class I side.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Application of Forsus on (A) Class II side and (B) Class I side.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Skeletal and dental cephalometric measurements: (1) SNA angle; (2) SNB angle; (3) ANB angle; (4) SN-GoGn angle; (5) U1-SN angle; (6) U1 vertical; (7) IMPA; (8) L1 vertical; (9) U6-horizontal; (10) U6-PP angle; (11) U6-vertical; (12) SN-occlusal plane angle.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Alavi DG, BeGole EA, Schneider BJ. Facial and dental arch asymmetries in Class II subdivision malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93:38–46. - PubMed
    1. Rose MR, Sadowsky C, BeGole EA, Moles R. Mandibular skeletal and dental asymmetry in Class II subdivision malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105:489–495. - PubMed
    1. Janson GRP, Metaxas A, Woodside DG, de Freitas MR, Pinzan A. Three-dimensional evaluation of skeletal and dental asymmetries in Class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119:406–418. - PubMed
    1. Azevedo ARP, Janson G, Henriques JFC, de Freitas MR. Evaluation of asymmetries between subjects with Class II subdivision and apparent facial asymmetry and those with normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:376–383. - PubMed
    1. Janson G, de Lima KJRS, Woodside DG, Metaxas A, de Freitas MR, Henriques JFC. Class II subdivision malocclusion types and evaluation of their asymmetries. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131:57–66. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources