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
. 2018 May;88(3):259-266.
doi: 10.2319/071717-476.1. Epub 2018 Mar 8.

Comparative evaluation of treatment effects between two fixed functional appliances for correction of Class II malocclusion: A single-center, randomized controlled trial

Vinni Arora, Rekha Sharma, Sonal Chowdhary
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparative evaluation of treatment effects between two fixed functional appliances for correction of Class II malocclusion: A single-center, randomized controlled trial

Vinni Arora et al. Angle Orthod. 2018 May.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effects of PowerScope and Forsus in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion.

Materials and methods: This was a 2-arm parallel, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 28 Class II division 1 malocclusion patients indicated for treatment with fixed functional appliances were randomized and equally divided (n = 14) among PowerScope (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis; mean age 14.11 ± 1.3 years) and Forsus (3M Unitek Corp, Monrovia, Calif; mean age 15.5 ± 1.1 years) groups. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of PowerScope and Forsus were compared. The secondary outcomes were evaluation of patient comfort and operator convenience. Randomization was accomplished with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and concealment was achieved by sealed opaque envelopes. The participants and data collectors were all blinded to study group allocation. Data were analyzed for 26 patients, 13 in each group, as one patient from each group discontinued treatment. Statistical comparisons were carried out using Student's t-tests and chi square tests ( P ≤ .05).

Results: A significantly greater mesial mandibular movement and improvement in sagittal skeletal relation were found in the Forsus patients ( P ≤ .05). The forward movement of the mandibular molar and incisors were greater in the PowerScope patients (2.3 mm and 2.80 mm) than in the Forsus patients (1.9 mm and 2.38 mm).

Conclusions: Both PowerScope and Forsus are effective in correcting Class II malocclusion. The percentage of dentoalveolar effects in correcting Class II malocclusion is more for PowerScope when compared with Forsus. Patient comfort was the same with both appliances. This trial was registered.

Keywords: Class II malocclusion; Pitchfork analysis; PowerScope.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT - Consolidated standards of reporting trials flow diagram.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Comparison of skeletal changes between the PowerScope (G1) and Forsus (G2) groups.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Comparison of dentoalveolar changes between the PowerScope (G1) and Forsus (G2) groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Mcnamara JA. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981;51:177–202. - PubMed
    1. Nelson C, Harkness M, Herbison P. Mandibular changes during functional appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;104:153–161. - PubMed
    1. Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:410–417. - PubMed
    1. Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, McNamara JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:599.e1–12. - PubMed
    1. Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1979;76:423–441. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources