A comparison of the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device and the Twin Block appliance in patients with class II malocclusions

Objectives We evaluated the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device (FRD) and the Twin Block appliance (TB) in comparison with nontreated controls in the treatment of patients with class II division 1 malocclusion. Materials and methods This retrospective study included three groups: TB (n=37; mean age, 11.2 years), FRD (n=30; mean age, 12.9 years), and controls (n=25; mean age, 12.6 years). Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at T1 (pretreatment) and at T2 (postappliance removal/equivalent time frame in controls). Cephalometric changes were evaluated using the Clark analysis, including 27 measurements. Results Sagittal correction of class II malocclusion appeared to be mainly achieved by dentoalveolar changes in the FRD group. The TB was able to induce both skeletal and dentoalveolar changes. A favorable influence on facial convexity was achieved by both groups. Significant upper incisor retroclination occurred with the TB (−12.42°), whereas only −4° was observed in the FRD group. The lower incisors proclined more in the FRD group than the TB group. Incisor overjet reduction was 62% in the TB group versus 56% in the FRD group. Molar relation was corrected in both functional groups, resulting in a class I relation, although no change appeared in the control sample. Conclusion Both appliances were effective in correcting the class II malocclusion. Both the FRD and the TB induced significant maxillary and mandibular dentoalveolar changes; skeletal changes were induced by TB but not FRD therapy.

[1]  T. Arun,et al.  A cephalometric comparative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS2) and Forsus FRD appliances , 2012, European journal of dentistry.

[2]  A. Husain,et al.  A comparision of Twin-block and Forsus (FRD) functional appliance--a cephalometric study. , 2012, International journal of orthodontics.

[3]  N. Gezer,et al.  Comparison of treatments with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in relation to skeletal maturity: a cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study. , 2011, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[4]  T. Arun,et al.  Evaluation of the Immediate Dentofacial Changes in Late Adolescent Patients Treated with the Forsus™ FRD , 2011, European journal of dentistry.

[5]  O. Kharbanda,et al.  Muscle response during treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. , 2011, The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry.

[6]  L. Franchi,et al.  Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients. , 2011, The Angle orthodontist.

[7]  P. Major,et al.  Short-term skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms. , 2009, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  P. Buschang,et al.  Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics. , 2008, The Angle orthodontist.

[9]  R. Shaye Contemporary Orthodontics, 4th ed. , 2007 .

[10]  Seniz Karacay,et al.  Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring and Jasper Jumper corrections of Class II division 1 malocclusions. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[11]  William Vogt The Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. , 2006, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[12]  A. Šidlauskas Clinical effectiveness of the Twin block appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. , 2005, Stomatologija.

[13]  A. Šidlauskas The effects of the Twin-block appliance treatment on the skeletal and dentolaveolar changes in Class II Division 1 malocclusion. , 2005, Medicina.

[14]  R. Nanda,et al.  Class II correction with the Twin Force Bite Corrector. , 2004, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[15]  Ian D. Shaw,et al.  Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 2: Psychosocial effects. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[16]  J. Devincenzo,et al.  A cephalometric study of the Class II correction effects of the Eureka Spring. , 2002, The Angle orthodontist.

[17]  O. Keith Contemporary orthodontics , 2002, Morecambe Bay Medical Journal.

[18]  P. McSherry,et al.  Class II Correction-Reducing Patient Compliance: A Review of the Available Techniques , 2000, Journal of orthodontics.

[19]  J A McNamara,et al.  Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy. , 2000, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[20]  C. Mills,et al.  Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance. , 2000, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[21]  M J Trenouth,et al.  Cephalometric evaluation of the Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with matched normative growth data. , 2000, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[22]  N. Tümer,et al.  Comparison of the effects of monoblock and twin-block appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. , 1999, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[23]  P. Banks,et al.  The use of myofunctional appliances in the UK: a survey of British orthodontists. , 1998, Dental update.

[24]  C M Mills,et al.  Treatment effects of the twin block appliance: a cephalometric study. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[25]  P. J. Sandler,et al.  The effects of Twin Blocks: a prospective controlled study. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[26]  West Rp The adjustable bite corrector. , 1995 .

[27]  W. Clark Twin Block Functional Therapy: Applications in Dentofacial Orthopaedics , 1995 .

[28]  R. West The adjustable bite corrector. , 1995, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[29]  J. F. Tulloch,et al.  Methods used to evaluate growth modification in Class II malocclusion. , 1990, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[30]  W. Clark,et al.  The twin block technique. , 1990, The Functional orthodontist.

[31]  W. Clark The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. , 1988, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[32]  W. Clark,et al.  The twin block traction technique. , 1982, European journal of orthodontics.