Amrin Rizwana, Tulika Tripathi*, Priyank Rai and Anup B Kanase

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India

*Corresponding Author: Tulika Tripathi, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Received: August 23, 2022; Published: September 13, 2022

Abstract

The challenge in Class II malocclusion is to achieve a maximum skeletal correction by utilizing residual growth which is possible by growth modification procedures. These procedures utilize a functional appliance which can be either removable or fixed, rigid or hybrid. Among hybrid fixed functional appliances Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) has been used popularly in non-compliant adolescent patients to correct the sagittal discrepancy. Many Clinical and Finite Element studies have been performed to assess the effects of dentally and skeletally anchored Forsus FRD on the craniofacial complex.

Keywords: Skeletal Class II Malocclusion; Growth Modification; Functional Appliance; Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD); Dentally Anchored; Skeletally Anchored

References

1. McNamara Jr JA. “Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age”. The Angle Orthodontist3 (1981): 177-202.
2. Alhammadi MS., et al. “Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review”. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 23 (2018): 40-41.
3. Emrich RE., et al. “Prevalence of Class I, class II, and class III malocclusions (angle) in an urban population in an epidemiological study”. Journal of Dental Research5 (1965): 947-953.
4. Tulloch JC., et al. “Influences on the outcome of early treatment for Class II malocclusion”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics5 (1997): 533-542.
5. Hsieh TJ., et al. “Assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes: early treatment versus late treatment”. The Angle Orthodontist2 (2005): 162-170.
6. King GJ., et al. “The timing of treatment for Class II malocclusions in children: a literature review”. The Angle Orthodontist2 (1990): 87-97.
7. Dugoni SA. “Comprehensive mixed dentition treatment”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics1 (1998): 75-84.
8. Tulloch JC., et al. “Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics1 (1998): 62-74.
9. Bishara SE and Ziaja RR. “Functional appliances: a review”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics3 (1989): 250-258.
10. Vogt W. “The Forsus fatigue resistant device”. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics: JCO6 (2006): 368-358.
11. Jones G., et al. “Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics”. The Angle Orthodontist2 (2008): 332-338.
12. Aslan BI., et al. “Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage”. The Angle Orthodontist1 (2014): 76-87.
13. Eissa O., et al. “Treatment outcomes of Class II malocclusion cases treated with miniscrew-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial”. The Angle Orthodontist6 (2017): 824-833.
14. Elkordy SA., et al. “Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial”. The Angle Orthodontist2 (2010): 292-305.
15. Celikoglu M., et al. “Treatment of a skeletal Class II malocclusion using a fixed functional appliance with miniplate anchorage”. European Journal of Dentistry02 (2014): 276-280.
16. Elkordy SA., et al. “Evaluation of the miniplate-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects: A randomized controlled trial”. The Angle Orthodontist 3 (2019): 391-403.
17. Kochar GD., et al. “Management of skeletal class II malocclusion using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed functional appliances”. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie1 (2021): 42-53.
18. Franchi L., et al. “Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients”. The Angle Orthodontist4 (2021): 678-683.
19. Dada DM., et al. “Treatment effects of Forsus fatigue resistant device on class II malocclusion cases: A cephalometric evaluation”. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists1 (2015): 14-17.
20. Aras I and Pasaoglu A. “Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics”. The Angle Orthodontist3 (2017): 371-376.
21. Michelogiannakis D., et al. “A cephalometric comparison of treatment effects and predictors of chin prominence in Class II Division 1 and 2 malocclusions with Forsus fatigue-resistant fixed functional appliance”. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists1 (2018): 17-23.
22. Kaur GJ., et al. “A Cephalometric Evaluation and Comparison of Skeletal, Dentoalveolar, and Soft Tissue Changes Brought about by the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device and PowerScope Fixed Functional Appliance”. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society (2021): 03015742211004435.
23. Linjawi AI and Abbassy MA. “Dentoskeletal effects of the forsus™ fatigue resistance device in the treatment of class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Orthodontic Science (2018): 7.
24. Karacay S., et al. “Forsus nitinol flat spring and Jasper jumper corrections of Class II division 1 malocclusions”. The Angle Orthodontist4 (2006): 666-672.
25. Turkkahraman H., et al. “Effects of miniplate anchored and conventional Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices in the treatment of Class II malocclusion”. The Angle Orthodontist6 (2016): 1026-1032.
26. Panigrahi P and Vineeth V. “Biomechanical effects of the fixed functional appliance on craniofacial structures”. The Angle Orthodontist4 (2009): 668-675.
27. Unal T., et al. “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”. The Angle Orthodontist3 (2015): 413-419.
28. Elkordy SA., et al. “Evaluation of the miniplate-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects: A randomized controlled trial”. The Angle Orthodontist 3 (2018): 391-403.
29. Oztoprak MO., et al. “A cephalometric comparative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS²) and Forsus FRD appliances”. European Journal of Dentistry 03 (2021): 302-310.
30. Cacciatore G., et al. “Active-treatment effects of the Forsus fatigue resistant device during comprehensive Class II correction in growing patients”. Korean Journal of Orthodontics 3 (2014): 136-142.
31. Chaudhry A., et al. “Evaluation of stress changes in the mandible with a fixed functional appliance: a finite element study”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2 (2015): 226-234.
32. Patil HA., et al. “Treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion in growing young patient using Forsus appliance”. European Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 4 (2016): C00261.

Citation

Citation: Tulika Tripathi., et al. “Effects of Dentally and Skeletally Anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device on the Craniofacial Complex - A Review Correlating Clinical and Finite Element Studies”. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 6.10 (2022): 08-14.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Tulika Tripathi., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.