Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment efficiency of activator and skeletal anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device appliances

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the study was to investigate the treatment efficiency of miniplate anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (MAF) as compared with the activator appliance.

Materials and methods

Mandibular retrognathia was treated with two methods, the MAF group (8 girls, 11 boys, mean age 13.03 ± 0.69 years) and the activator group (7 girls, 12 boys, mean age 12.68 ± 0.73 years). An untreated control group (9 girls, 10 boys, mean age 12.95 ± 0.73 years) was constructed to eliminate growth-related changes through the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation Legacy Collection. Data of 114 lateral cephalograms were analyzed.

Results

The inhibition of the maxillary growth was greater in the MAF group, whereas forward displacement of the mandible was higher in the activator group (P < 0.05). Sagittal maxillomandibular relation was improved similarly in both treatment groups (P < 0.05). Mandibular length was increased in both treatment groups with the highest increase in the activator group (P < 0.05). Retroclination of the incisors was observed in the MAF group (P < 0.05). The upper lip was retruded in the MAF group and lower lip was protruded in the activator group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The activator created greater mandibular changes, whereas the MAF provides somewhat smaller mandibular changes due to the restriction caused by retroclined maxillary incisors.

Clinical relevance

Although both MAF and activator treatments caused favorable maxillomandibular changes, new treatment alternatives that reduce dentoalveolar side effects and eliminate patient cooperation are still required to achieve skeletal correction in class II malocclusion treatment in growing patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Moray LJ (1998) Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 13:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0414-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McNamara JA (1981) Components of class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod 51:177–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aslan BI, Kucukkaraca E, Turkoz C, Dincer M (2014) Treatment effects of the Forsus fatigue resistant device used with miniscrew anchorage. Angle Orthod 84:76–87. https://doi.org/10.2319/032613-240.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shen G, Hägg U, Darendeliler MA (2005) Skeletal effects of bite jumping therapy on the mandible -removable vs. Fixed functional appliances. Orthod Craniofacial Res 8:2–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Turkkahraman H, Eliacik SK, Findik Y (2016) Effects of miniplate anchored and conventional Forsus fatigue resistant devices in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 86:1026–1032. https://doi.org/10.2319/122515-887.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elkordy SA, Abouelezz AM, Fayed MMS, Aboulfotouh MH, Mostafa YA (2019) Evaluation of the miniplate-anchored Forsus fatigue resistant device in skeletal class II growing subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 89:391–403. https://doi.org/10.2319/062018-468.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Unal T, Celikoglu M, Candirli C (2015) Evaluation of the effects of skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD using miniplates inserted on mandibular symphysis: a new approach for the treatment of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 85:413–419. https://doi.org/10.2319/051314-345.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Celikoglu M, Unal T, Bayram M, Candirli C (2014) Treatment of a skeletal class II malocclusion using fixed functional appliance with miniplate anchorage. Eur J Dent 8:276–280. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.130637

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Koretsi V, Zymperdikas VF, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA (2015) Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 37:418–434. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marsico E, Gatto E, Burrascano M, Matarese G, Cordasco G (2011) Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with functional appliances on mandibular growth in the short term. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 139:24–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen JY, Will LA, Niederman R (2002) Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 122:470–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA (2005) The cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of optimal treatment timing in dentofacial orthopedics. Semin Orthod 11:119–129. https://doi.org/10.1053/J.SODO.2005.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cozza P, De Toffol L, Colagrossi S (2004) Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes during activator therapy. Eur J Orthod 26:293–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bilgiç F, Başaran G, Hamamci O (2015) Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in the treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusions. Clin Oral Investig 19:445–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1237-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Proffit W, Sarver D, Ackerman J (2012) Orthodontic diagnosis: the problem-oriented approach. In: Proffit W, Fields H, Sarver D (eds) Contemporary Orthodontics, 5th ed. Mosby, pp 150–214

  16. Aras A, Ada E, Saracoglu H et al (2011) Comparison of treatments with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in relation to skeletal maturity: a cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 140:616–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.12.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cacciatore G, Ghislanzoni L, Alvetro L et al (2014) Treatment and posttreatment effects induced by the Forsus appliance: a controlled clinical study. Angle Orthod 84:1010–1017. https://doi.org/10.2319/112613-867.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR (2008) Class II non-extraction patients treated with the forsus fatigue resistant device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod 78:332–338. https://doi.org/10.2319/030607-115.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Karacay S, Akin E, Olmez H, Gurton AU, Sagdic D (2006) Forsus nitinol flat spring and Jasper jumper corrections of class II division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 76:666–672. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0666:FNFSAJ]2.0.CO;2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Celikoglu M, Buyuk SK, Ekizer A, Unal T (2016) Treatment effects of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ and Herbst appliances: a retrospective clinical study. Angle Orthod 86:306–314. https://doi.org/10.2319/040315-225.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Eissa O, El-Shennawy M, Gaballah S et al (2017) Treatment outcomes of class II malocclusion cases treated with miniscrew-anchored Forsus fatigue resistant device: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 87:824–833. https://doi.org/10.2319/032717-214.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Manni A, Pasini M, Mauro C (2012) Comparison between Herbst appliances with or without miniscrew anchorage. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 9:S216–S221. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.109762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Al-Dumaini AA, Halboub E, Alhammadi MS et al (2018) A novel approach for treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion: miniplates-based skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 153:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.06.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Elkordy SA, Abouelezz AM, Fayed MMS et al (2016) Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant-anchored Forsus fatigue resistant device: a randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 86:292–305. https://doi.org/10.2319/012515-55.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Harvold EP, Vargervik K (1971) Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. Am J Orthod 60:478–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90114-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A, Sari Z (2003) The effects of activator treatment on the craniofacial structures of class II division 1 patients. Eur J Orthod 25:87–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. dos Santos Lopes Batista KB, Lima T, Palomares N et al (2017) Herbst appliance with skeletal anchorage versus dental anchorage in adolescents with class II malocclusion: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 18:564. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2297-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ishii N, Deguchi T, Hunt NP (2002) Morphological differences in the craniofacial structure between Japanese and Caucasian girls with class II division 1 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 24:61–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.1.61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation for their kindness in the donation of growth study records.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Sinem Ince-Bingol, Burcak Kaya & Ayca Arman-Ozcirpici

  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Burak Bayram

Authors
  1. Sinem Ince-Bingol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Burcak Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Burak Bayram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ayca Arman-Ozcirpici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors have read and approved the manuscript statement.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sinem Ince-Bingol.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Baskent University Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee (Project number: D-KA 16/14). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ince-Bingol, S., Kaya, B., Bayram, B. et al. Treatment efficiency of activator and skeletal anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device appliances. Clin Oral Invest 25, 1505–1512 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03458-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03458-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation