Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU 2021; 11(02): 087-092
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722821
Original Article

Comparative Evaluation of Hard-Tissue and Soft-Tissue Changes following Fixed Functional Appliance Treatment in a Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Using Forsus and PowerScope

Prajwal Shetty
1   Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Science, Nitte (Deemed to be) University, Deralakatte, Karnataka, India
,
Mukul Shetty
1   Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Science, Nitte (Deemed to be) University, Deralakatte, Karnataka, India
,
Maitreyi Chalapati
2   Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Private Clinic, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
,
Chaitra Kori
3   Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Private Clinic, Hubli, Karnataka, India
,
Crystal Runa Soans
1   Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Science, Nitte (Deemed to be) University, Deralakatte, Karnataka, India
,
Murali P. S.
1   Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Science, Nitte (Deemed to be) University, Deralakatte, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft-tissue effects of 2 fixed functional appliance; Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device (FFRD) and PowerScope appliance in treating patients with skeletal class II division 1 malocclusion.

Materials and Methods This comparative prospective two-group study included 20 patients with a mean age of 11.2 ± 1.6 years with skeletal class II malocclusion with retrognathic mandible. One group was treated with FFRD, and second group was treated with PowerScope appliance. Lateral cephalograms were evaluated at T1 (pre-functional appliance treatment)) and at T2 (postappliance treatment). Cephalometric values were calculated and assessed to evaluate skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft-tissue changes.

Results Sagittal correction of class II malocclusion appeared to be mainly achieved by dentoalveolar changes in the PowerScope group. The FFRD was able to induce both skeletal and dentoalveolar changes. A favorable influence on facial convexity was achieved by both groups. A significant increase in upper pharynx and lower pharynx dimension was seen in the PowerScope group. A statistically significant decrease in upper lip protrusion, increase in lower lip protrusion, increased nasolabial angle, and decrease in inferior labial sulcus were noted in both the groups. Lower incisors proclined more in the PowerScope group.

Conclusion Both appliances were effective in correcting class II malocclusion. Forsus had more skeletal effects on the mandible, whereas PowerScope had less skeletal effects on the mandible and more dentoalveolar effects, contributing to class II correction. Both groups showed a significant improvement in soft-tissue profile. PowerScope group showed a significant increase in airway dimensions.

Keywords

retrognathic mandible - skeletal class II malocclusion - Forsus appliance - PowerScope appliance


Publication History

Article published online:
10 February 2021

© 2021. Nitte (Deemed to be University). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Nelson B, Hansen K, Hägg U. Class II correction in patients treated with class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118 (02) 142-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Flores-Mir C, Major MP, Major PW. Soft tissue changes with fixed functional appliances in Class II division 1. Angle Orthod 2006; 76 (04) 712-720
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod 2008; 78 (02) 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V, Masucci C, Defraia E, Baccetti T. Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2011; 81 (04) 678-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ozdemir F, Ulkur F, Nalbantgil D. Effects of fixed functional therapy on tongue and hyoid positions and posterior airway. Angle Orthod 2014; 84 (02) 260-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hanoun A, Al-Jewair TS, Tabbaa S, Allaymouni MA, Preston CB. A comparison of the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device and the Twin Block appliance in patients with class II malocclusions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2014; 6: 57-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gunay EA, Arun T, Nalbantgil D. Evaluation of the immediate dentofacial changes in late adolescent patients treated with the ForsusTM FRD. Eur J Dent 2011; 5 (04) 423-432
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Paulose J, Antony PJ, Sureshkumar B, George SM, Mathew MM, Sebastian J. PowerScope a Class II corrector - a case report. Contemp Clin Dent 2016; 7 (02) 221-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Khumanthem S, Kumar M, Ansari A, Jain A. Correction of Class II using Powerscope Appliance-a case report. Arch of Dent and Med Res 2016; 2 (03) 120-125
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Hong JS, Oh KM, Kim BR, Kim YJ, Park YH. Three-dimensional analysis of pharyngeal airway volume in adults with anterior position of the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140 (04) e161-e169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mahamad IK, Neela PK, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. A comparison of twin-block and Forsus (FRD) functional appliance--a cephalometric study. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2012; 23 (03) 49-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Heinig N, Göz G. Clinical application and effects of the Forsus spring. A study of a new Herbst hybrid. J Orofac Orthop 2001; 62 (06) 436-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Battagel JM, Johal A, Kotecha B. A cephalometric comparison of subjects with snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur J Orthod 2000; 22 (04) 353-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tran KD, Nguyen CD, Weedon J, Goldstein NA. Child behavior and quality of life in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 131 (01) 52-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ulusoy C, Canigur Bavbek N, Tuncer BB, Tuncer C, Turkoz C, Gencturk Z. Evaluation of airway dimensions and changes in hyoid bone position following class II functional therapy with activator. Acta Odontol Scand 2014; 72 (08) 917-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rizk S, Kulbersh VP, Al-Qawasmi R. Changes in the oropharyngeal airway of Class II patients treated with the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance. Angle Orthod 2016; 86 (06) 955-961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Abu Allhaija ES, Al-Khateeb SN. Uvulo-glosso-pharyngeal dimensions in different anteroposterior skeletal patterns. Angle Orthod 2005; 75 (06) 1012-1018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar