Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics
- 1 March 2008
- journal article
- Published by The Angle Orthodontist (EH Angle Education & Research Foundation) in Angle Orthodontist
- Vol. 78 (2), 332-338
- https://doi.org/10.2319/030607-115.1
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) as a compliance-free alternative to Class II elastics. Materials and Methods: A sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction FRD patients (12.6 years of age) were matched with a sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction Class II elastics patients (12.2 years of age) based on four pretreatment variables (ANB, L1-GoMe, SN-GoMe, and treatment duration). Pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed using the pitchfork analysis and a vertical cephalometric analysis. t-Tests were used to evaluate group differences. Group differences were evaluated using t-tests. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in the treatment changes between the groups. There was a general trend for mesial movement of the maxilla, mandible, and dentition during treatment for both groups. The mandibular skeletal advancement and dental movements were greater than those in the maxilla, which accounted for the Class II correction. Lower incisor proclination was evident in both groups. Vertically, the maxillary and mandibular molars erupted during treatment in both groups, while lower incisors proclined. With the exception of lower molar mesial movements and total molar correction, which were significantly (P < .05) greater in the Forsus group, there were no statistically significant group differences in the treatment changes. Conclusions: The Forsus FRD is an acceptable substitute for Class II elastics for noncompliant patients.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patientsAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2006
- Clinical and quantitative assessment of headgear compliance: A pilot studyAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2006
- Class II correction in patients treated with Class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: A comparative studyAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2000
- An evaluation of factors affecting duration of orthodontic treatmentAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1999
- A comparative study of anchorage in bioprogressive versus standard edgewise treatment in Class II correction with intermaxillary elastic forceAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1998
- Cephalometric changes associated with treatment using the activator, the Fränkel appliance, and the fixed applianceAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1985
- A comparison of Class II treatment changes noted with the light wire, edgewise, and Fränkel appliancesAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1984
- Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance: A cephalometric investigationAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1979
- Dentofacial remodelling produced by intermaxillary forces in Macaca mulattaArchives of Oral Biology, 1972
- Bony profile changes resulting from cervical traction compared with those resulting from intermaxillary elasticsAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1959