Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Research Articles

Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients

To assess the dental, skeletal, and soft tissue effects of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment combined with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) in Class II patients. Thirty-two Class II patients (mean age 12.7 ± 1.2 years) were treated consecutively with the FRD protocol and compared with a matched sample of 27 untreated Class II subjects (mean age 12.8 ± 1.3 years). Lateral cephalograms were taken before therapy and at the completion of comprehensive therapy. The mean duration of comprehensive treatment was 2.4 ± 0.4 years. Statistical comparisons were carried out with the Student's t-test (P < .05). The success rate was 87.5%. The FRD group showed a significant restraint in the sagittal skeletal position of the maxilla (also at the soft tissue level), a significant increase in mandibular length, and a significant improvement in maxillo-mandibular sagittal skeletal relationships. The treated group exhibited a significant reduction in overjet and a significant increase in molar relationship. The lower incisors were significantly proclined and intruded, while the lower first molars moved significantly in a mesial and vertical direction. The FRD protocol is effective in correcting Class II malocclusion with a combination of skeletal (mainly maxillary) and dentoalveolar (mainly mandibular) modifications.

Class II Non-Extraction Patients Treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device Versus Intermaxillary Elastics

To evaluate the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) as a compliance-free alternative to Class II elastics. 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. 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. The Forsus FRD is an acceptable substitute for Class II elastics for noncompliant patients.