Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the skeletal and dento-alveolar changes associated with the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device and the Herbst appliances in conjunction with full fixed appliances (FFA) in the correction of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
Pre-treatment and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 27 growing patients treated with the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device and FFA (mean age was 13.62 years) and 20 growing patients treated with the Herbst appliance (mean age was 12.52 years) were digitized and analyzed using the method of Pancherz.
During treatment there was no significant change in the position of the condyle for either group. In the maxilla, A point came forward more in the Herbst group (1.66mm) and came forward less in the Forsus group (0.87mm); however, these changes were not statistically-significant. In the mandible, Pognion came forward (3.76mm) in the Herbst group and (4.35mm) in the Forsus group. Molar correction was (3.6mm) in the Herbst group and (2.03mm) in the Forsus group. Overjet correction was (5.65mm) in the Herbst group and (4.55mm) in the Forsus group. The relative contribution to overjet and molar correction was predominantly skeletal for the Forsus group and approximately equally dental and skeletal for the Herbst group. There were no changes in the vertical planes angles in the Herbst group while the palatal plane angle has statically-significant increase in the Forsus group.
Dental effect of appliance therapy irrespective of the choice of appliance appeared to increase with advancing age as the skeletal effects decreased. Both appliances were effective in managing the Class II div 1 malocclusion.
Pre-treatment and post-treatment lateral cephalograms of 27 growing patients treated with the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device and FFA (mean age was 13.62 years) and 20 growing patients treated with the Herbst appliance (mean age was 12.52 years) were digitized and analyzed using the method of Pancherz.
During treatment there was no significant change in the position of the condyle for either group. In the maxilla, A point came forward more in the Herbst group (1.66mm) and came forward less in the Forsus group (0.87mm); however, these changes were not statistically-significant. In the mandible, Pognion came forward (3.76mm) in the Herbst group and (4.35mm) in the Forsus group. Molar correction was (3.6mm) in the Herbst group and (2.03mm) in the Forsus group. Overjet correction was (5.65mm) in the Herbst group and (4.55mm) in the Forsus group. The relative contribution to overjet and molar correction was predominantly skeletal for the Forsus group and approximately equally dental and skeletal for the Herbst group. There were no changes in the vertical planes angles in the Herbst group while the palatal plane angle has statically-significant increase in the Forsus group.
Dental effect of appliance therapy irrespective of the choice of appliance appeared to increase with advancing age as the skeletal effects decreased. Both appliances were effective in managing the Class II div 1 malocclusion.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 71-92 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Sri Lankan Journal of Orthodontics |
| Volume | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2020 |