The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Active-treatment effects of the Forsus fatigue resistant device during comprehensive Class II correction in growing patients

  • Cacciatore, Giorgio (Department of Human Morphology and Biomedical Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Milan) ;
  • Alvetro, Lisa (Department of Orthodontics, Case Western Reserve University) ;
  • Defraia, Efisio (Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence) ;
  • Ghislanzoni, Luis Tomas Huanc (Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan) ;
  • Franchi, Lorenzo (Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence)
  • Received : 2013.07.19
  • Accepted : 2013.10.05
  • Published : 2014.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the active-treatment effects of the Forsus fatigue resistant device (Forsus) during comprehensive correction of Class II malocclusion in growing patients. Methods: Fifty-four patients (mean age, $12.5{\pm}1.2$ years) with Class II division 1 malocclusion were consecutively treated with fixed app-liances in combination with Forsus. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed at the beginning of the fixed treatment (T1), Forsus insertion (T2), its removal (T3), and end of the comprehensive therapy (T4). Statistical comparisons were carried out by repeated-measures ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Results: The overall therapeutic effects were mainly dentoalveolar and occurred mostly during the active treatment with Forsus (T2-T3, mean duration = $0.5{\pm}0.1$ years). The overjet and overbite decreased significantly (-3.5 and -1.5 mm, respectively) and the molar relationship improved by 4.3 mm. These changes were associated with significant retroclination of the maxillary incisors ($-3.1^{\circ}$), proclination and intrusion of the mandibular incisors ($+5.0^{\circ}$ and -1.5 mm, respectively), and mesialization of the mandibular molars (+2.0 mm). Conclusions: Forsus had mainly dentoalveolar effects and contributed largely to the overall therapeutic outcome.

Keywords

References

  1. Bos A, Hoogstraten J, Prahl-Andersen B. On the use of personality characteristics in predicting compliance in orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:568-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00050-7
  2. Story RI. Psychological issues in orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod 1966;52:584-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(66)90139-4
  3. El-Mangoury NH. Orthodontic cooperation. Am J Orthod 1981;80:604-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(81)90264-5
  4. Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E. Micro-electronic monitoring of functional appliance wear. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:297-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/12.3.297
  5. Cureton SL, Regennitter FJ, Yancey JM. Clinical versus quantitative assessment of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104:277-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81731-7
  6. Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982;82:104-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90489-4
  7. Schiavoni R. The Herbst appliance updated. Prog Orthod 2011;12:149-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pio.2011.06.004
  8. 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;123:286-95. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.8
  9. Ghislanzoni LT, Toll DE, Defraia E, Baccetti T, Franchi L. Treatment and posttreatment outcomes induced by the Mandibular Advancement Repositioning Appliance; a controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod 2011;81:684-91. https://doi.org/10.2319/111010-656.1
  10. Jasper JJ, McNamara JA Jr. The correction of interarch malocclusions using a fixed force module. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:641-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70010-2
  11. Küçükkeleş N, Ilhan I, Orgun IA. Treatment efficiency in skeletal Class II patients treated with the jasper jumper. Angle Orthod 2007;77:449-56. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0449:TEISCI]2.0.CO;2
  12. Stromeyer EL, Caruso JM, DeVincenzo JP. A cephalometric study of the Class II correction effects of the Eureka Spring. Angle Orthod 2002;72:203-10.
  13. Bowman AC, Saltaji H, Flores-Mir C, Preston B, Tabbaa S. Patient experiences with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. Angle Orthod 2013;83: 437-46. https://doi.org/10.2319/081112-647.1
  14. 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;78:332-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/030607-115.1
  15. Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V, Masucci C, Defraia E, Baccetti T. Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2011;81:678-83. https://doi.org/10.2319/102710-629.1
  16. Aras A, Ada E, Saracoğlu H, Gezer NS, Aras I. Comparison of treatments with the Forsus fa-tigue resistant device in relation to skeletal maturity: a cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140: 616-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.12.018
  17. Gunay EA, Arun T, Nalbantgil D. Evaluation of the immediate dentofacial changes in late adolescent patients treated with the Forsus(TM) FRD. Eur J Dent 2011;5:423-32.
  18. McNamara JA Jr. Early intervention in the transverse dimension: is it worth the effort? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:572-4. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.124167
  19. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in den-tofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 2005;11:119-29. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2005.04.005
  20. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(53)90082-7
  21. Jacobson A. The "Wits" appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67:125-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90065-2
  22. Ricketts RM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. Angle Orthod 1981;51:115-50.
  23. McNamara JA Jr. A method of cephalometric valuation. Am J Orthod 1984;86:449-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(84)90352-X
  24. Shroff B, Lindauer SJ. Leveling and aligning: Challenges and solutions. Semin Orthod 2001;7:16-25. https://doi.org/10.1053/sodo.2001.21054
  25. Phan KL, Bendeus M, Hägg U, Hansen K, Rabie AB. Comparison of the headgear activator and Herbst appliance-effects and post-treatment changes. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:594-604. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl052
  26. Aslan BI, Kucukkaraca E, Turkoz C, Dincer M. Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage. Angle Orthod 2014;84:76-87. https://doi.org/10.2319/032613-240.1
  27. Pancherz H, Anehus-Pancherz M. The headgear effect of the Herbst appliance: a cephalometric long-term study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:510-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70090-B

Cited by

  1. Can the use of skeletal anchors in conjunction with fixed functional appliances promote skeletal changes? A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.38, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv081
  2. Letters From Our Readers vol.86, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219-86.2.345
  3. Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial vol.86, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/012515-55.1
  4. Comparison of surgical and non-surgical orthodontic treatment approaches on occlusal and cephalometric outcomes in patients with Class II Division I malocclusions vol.18, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0171-3
  5. Treatment outcomes of Class II malocclusion cases treated with miniscrew-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial vol.87, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2319/032717-214.1
  6. Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics vol.87, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/070216-518.1
  7. Comparison of Treatment Effects with Modified C-Palatal Plates vs Greenfield Molar Distalizer Appliances in Adolescents vol.44, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4625-44.3.12
  8. Esthetic perception of facial profile changes in Class II patients treated with Herbst or Forsus appliances vol.90, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/052719-362.1
  9. Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Soft Tissue Changes after Functional Therapy vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9928101
  10. Evaluation of the splint-supported Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects vol.91, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/040320-250.1
  11. Skeletally anchored forsus fatigue resistant device for correction of Class II malocclusions—A systematic review and meta‐analysis vol.24, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12414
  12. Stability of Class II Malocclusion Treatment with the Austro Repositioner Followed by Fixed Appliances in Brachyfacial Patients vol.18, pp.18, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189793