Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.3.136

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)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.44, no.3, 2014 , pp. 136-142 More about this Journal
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
Fixed functional appliance; Class II malocclusion; Cephalometrics;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.   DOI
2 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.   DOI
3 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.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
6 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.   DOI
7 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.
8 McNamara JA Jr. Early intervention in the transverse dimension: is it worth the effort? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:572-4.   DOI
9 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39:729-55.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Jacobson A. The "Wits" appraisal of jaw disharmony. Am J Orthod 1975;67:125-38.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Ricketts RM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. Angle Orthod 1981;51:115-50.
13 McNamara JA Jr. A method of cephalometric valuation. Am J Orthod 1984;86:449-69.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Sahm G, Bartsch A, Witt E. Micro-electronic monitoring of functional appliance wear. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:297-301.   DOI
15 Cureton SL, Regennitter FJ, Yancey JM. Clinical versus quantitative assessment of headgear compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 104:277-84.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1982;82:104-13.   DOI
17 Schiavoni R. The Herbst appliance updated. Prog Orthod 2011;12:149-60.   DOI
18 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.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 Jasper JJ, McNamara JA Jr. The correction of interarch malocclusions using a fixed force module. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:641-50.   DOI
21 Küçükkeleş N, Ilhan I, Orgun IA. Treatment efficiency in skeletal Class II patients treated with the jasper jumper. Angle Orthod 2007;77:449-56.   DOI
22 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.
23 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.   DOI
24 Shroff B, Lindauer SJ. Leveling and aligning: Challenges and solutions. Semin Orthod 2001;7:16-25.   DOI
25 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.   DOI
26 Story RI. Psychological issues in orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod 1966;52:584-98.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 El-Mangoury NH. Orthodontic cooperation. Am J Orthod 1981;80:604-22.   DOI   ScienceOn