Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Dept of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Oxford Dental College, Bangalore, India

2 Professor, Dept. of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Kamineni Institute of Dental Sciences, Narketpally, Andhra Pradesh, India

3 Professor & Head, Dept. of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics, BJS Dental College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

4 General Dental Practitioner, The Dental Clinic, Bangalore, India

5 Consultant Orthodontist, Welcare Dental Clinic, Kalyani-Nadia, West Bengal, India

6 Associate Professor, Department of Periodontics, The Oxford Dental College, Bangalore, India

7 General Dental Practitioner, Max Dental Specialties, Bangalore, India

10.22034/ijo.2021.543902.1014

Abstract

Background: Fixed functional appliances used in the treatment of Class II malocclusion have the advantage of requiring minimal patient compliance, and they can be used simultaneously with fixed orthodontic appliances. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) in growing patients with Class II malocclusion.
Methods: A total of 50 pre-treatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) Lateral Cephalometric Radiographs (LCRs) of 25 patients treated with Forsus fatigue resistant device (mean age = 12 ± 0.54years) for the correction of skeletal class II malocclusion were compared with the 25 untreated class II control patients (mean age 12 ± 0.38 years) who did not undergo any treatment during this period. The skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes were evaluated using cephalometric measurements, and the treatment changes were analyzed by paired t-test.
Results: The LCRs findings showed that the FFRD produced more dentoalveolar changes with less skeletal changes. The dentoalveolar changes in the FFRD group include significant reduction of overjet & overbite (p<0.001), retroclination of maxillary incisors (p<0.001), proclination and intrusion of the mandibular incisors (p<0.001) and mesialization of mandibular first molars (p<0.001). A significant improvement in the skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue structures of the face was achieved in the FFRD group compared with the control group.
Conclusion: The FFRD is effective in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. The Class II correction was achieved by a combination of skeletal and dentoalveolar effects, and wherein dentoalveolar changes were more predominant compared to the skeletal changes.

Keywords

Main Subjects