Back to Journals » Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry » Volume 6

A comparison of the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device and the Twin Block appliance in patients with class II malocclusions

Authors Hanoun A, Al-Jewair T, Tabbaa S, Allaymouni MA, Preston CB

Received 15 March 2014

Accepted for publication 22 April 2014

Published 2 August 2014 Volume 2014:6 Pages 57—63

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S64119

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 5


Abdulfatah Hanoun,1 Thikriat S Al-Jewair,1,2 Sawsan Tabbaa,1 Mhd Amer Allaymouni,1 Charles B Preston1

1Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, USA; 2College of Dentistry, University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Objectives: We evaluated the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device (FRD) and the Twin Block appliance (TB) in comparison with nontreated controls in the treatment of patients with class II division 1 malocclusion.
Materials and methods: This retrospective study included three groups: TB (n=37; mean age, 11.2 years), FRD (n=30; mean age, 12.9 years), and controls (n=25; mean age, 12.6 years). Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at T1 (pretreatment) and at T2 (postappliance removal/equivalent time frame in controls). Cephalometric changes were evaluated using the Clark analysis, including 27 measurements.
Results: Sagittal correction of class II malocclusion appeared to be mainly achieved by dentoalveolar changes in the FRD group. The TB was able to induce both skeletal and dentoalveolar changes. A favorable influence on facial convexity was achieved by both groups. Significant upper incisor retroclination occurred with the TB (-12.42°), whereas only -4° was observed in the FRD group. The lower incisors proclined more in the FRD group than the TB group. Incisor overjet reduction was 62% in the TB group versus 56% in the FRD group. Molar relation was corrected in both functional groups, resulting in a class I relation, although no change appeared in the control sample.
Conclusion: Both appliances were effective in correcting the class II malocclusion. Both the FRD and the TB induced significant maxillary and mandibular dentoalveolar changes; skeletal changes were induced by TB but not FRD therapy.

Keywords: orthodontics, cephalometry, class II malocclusion, functional appliances

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]