Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics
- PMID: 27762602
- PMCID: PMC8381987
- DOI: 10.2319/070216-518.1
Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics
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.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Dental and Skeletal Effects of Herbst Appliance, Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device, and Class II Elastics-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.J Clin Med. 2022 Nov 26;11(23):6995. doi: 10.3390/jcm11236995. J Clin Med. 2022. PMID: 36498570 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Class II treatment effects with fixed functional appliances: Jasper jumper vs. Forsus fatigue resistant device.Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022 Feb;25(1):134-141. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12515. Epub 2021 Oct 7. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022. PMID: 34219381
-
Evaluating the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of Carriere Distalizer: a cephalometric and study model comparison of Class II appliances.Prog Orthod. 2019 Jun 18;20(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s40510-019-0280-2. Prog Orthod. 2019. PMID: 31209589 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of 2 treatment protocols using fixed functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: Treatment results and stability.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Apr;157(4):474-480. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.05.013. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020. PMID: 32241354
-
Dentoskeletal and soft-tissue changes in growing class II malocclusion patients during nonextraction orthodontic treatment.SADJ. 2006 Sep;61(8):344-50. SADJ. 2006. PMID: 17165248 Review.
Cited by
-
Dental and Skeletal Effects of Herbst Appliance, Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device, and Class II Elastics-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.J Clin Med. 2022 Nov 26;11(23):6995. doi: 10.3390/jcm11236995. J Clin Med. 2022. PMID: 36498570 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Three-dimensional positional assessment of glenoid fossae and mandibular condyles in patients with Class II subdivision malocclusion.Angle Orthod. 2017 Nov;87(6):847-854. doi: 10.2319/121216-890.1. Epub 2017 Sep 1. Angle Orthod. 2017. PMID: 28862492 Free PMC article.
-
Orthodontic treatment of an adolescent patient with Class II division 1 malocclusion with consideration of growth pattern and occlusal plane: A case report.Clin Case Rep. 2021 May 15;9(5):e04244. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.4244. eCollection 2021 May. Clin Case Rep. 2021. PMID: 34026198 Free PMC article.
-
Treatment of mild Class II malocclusion in growing patients with clear aligners versus fixed multibracket therapy: A retrospective study.Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022 Feb;25(1):96-102. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12500. Epub 2021 May 31. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2022. PMID: 34013659 Free PMC article.
-
Stability of class II correction with the Austro Repositioner associated with multi-brackets fixed appliances in dolichofacial patients.BMC Oral Health. 2024 Jan 8;24(1):44. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03692-7. BMC Oral Health. 2024. PMID: 38191391 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources