Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 86, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 292-305

  Elkordy, Sherif A ^a   Abouelezz, Amr M ^a   Fayed, Mona M Salah ^a   Attia, Khaled H ^a   Ishaq, Ramy Abdul Rahman ^a   Mostafa, Yehya A ^a  

^a Cairo University   (Egypt)

Author keywords

Anchorage; Class II malocclusion; Fixed functional; Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device; Mini implants

Indexed keywords

TOOTH IMPLANT;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL PROCEDURE; DEVICES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCISOR; MANDIBLE; MOLAR TOOTH; ORTHODONTIC ANCHORAGE; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; PATHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TOOTH IMPLANT;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCISOR; MANDIBLE; MOLAR; ORTHODONTIC ANCHORAGE PROCEDURES; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES;

EID: 84960433840     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: 19457103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2319/012515-55.1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Oztoprak M, Nalbantgil D, Uyanlar A, Arun T. A cephalo-metric comparative study of Class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring 2 and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device appliances. Eur J Dent. 2012;6:302-310.
2. Vásquez M, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. Dentofacial features of Class II malocclusion associated with maxillary skeletal protrusion:a longitudinal study at the circumpubertal growth period. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135:568.e1-568.e7.
3. Silva R, Kang D. Prevalence of malocclusion among Latino adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119:313-315.
4. Lew K, Foong W, Loh E. Malocclusion prevalence in an ethnic Chinese population. Aust Dent J. 1993;38:442-449.
5. Garner L, Butt M. Malocclusion in black Americans and Nyeri Kenyans: an epidemiologic study. Angle Orthod. 1985;55:139-146.
6. McNamara JA Jr. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of age. Angle Orthod. 1981;51:177-202.
7. Perillo L, Padricelli G, Isola G, Femiano F, Chiodono P, Matarese G. Class II malocclusion division 1: a new classification method by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012;13:192-196.
8. McSherry PF, Bradley H. Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques. J Orthod. 2000;27:219-225.
9. Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1979;76:423-442.
10. Vogt W. The Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. J Clin Orthod. 2006;40(6):368-377.
11. 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;81:678-683.
12. Gunay E, Arun T, Nalbantgilc D. Evaluation of the immediate dentofacial changes in late adolescent patients treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. Eur J Dent. 2011;5:423-432.
13. Bilgiç F, Hamamci O, BaşaranG. Comparison of the effects of fixed and removable functional appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Aust Orthod J. 2011;27:110-116.
14. Mahamad I, Neela P, Mascarenhas R, Husain A. A comparison of Twin-block and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device functional appliance. A cephalometric study. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2012;23:49-58.
15. Bilgiç F, Başaran G, Hamamci O. Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in the treatment of Class II, division 1 malocclusions. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(2):445-451.
16. Cacciatore G, Alvetro L, Defraia E, Ghislanzoni L, Franchi L. Active-treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device during comprehensive Class II correction in growing patients. Korean J Orthod. 2014;44:136-142.
17. Manni A, Pasini M, Mauro C. Comparison between Herbst appliances with or without miniscrew anchorage. Dent Res J. 2012;9:S216-S222.
18. Gandedkar N, Revankar A, Ganeshkar S. Correction of a severe skeletal Class II occlusion with a fixed functional appliance anchored on mini-implants: a patient report. World J Orthod. 2010;11:369-379.
19. Luzi C, Luzi V, Carletti P, Melsen B. The Miniscrew-Anchored Herbst - A case report. J Clin Orthod. 2012;46:399-405.
20. Luzi C, Luzi V. Skeletal Class II treatment with the miniscrew-anchored Herbst. Orthod Fr. 2013;84:307-318.
21. Aslan B, Kucukkaraca E, Turkoz C, Dincer M. Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:76-87.
22. Karatas OH, Toy E. Three-dimensional imaging techniques: a literature review. Eur J Dent. 2014;8:132-140.
23. Weschler D, Pancherz H. Efficiency of three mandibular anchorage forms in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Angle Orthod. 2004;75:23-27.
24. Rajagopal S. A comparison of modified MP3 stages and the cervical vertebrae as growth indicators. J Clin Orthod. 2002;36:398-406.
25. AlSamak S, Psomiadis S, Gkantidis N. Positional guidelines for orthodontic mini-implant placement in the anterior alveolar region: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:470-479.
26. Al-Khateeb E, Al-Khateeb S. Anteroposterior and vertical components of Class II division 1 and division 2 malocclu-sion. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:859-866.
27. Chung C, Wong W. Craniofacial growth in untreated skeletal Class II subjects: a longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dento-facial Orthop. 2002;122:619-626.
28. Hägg U, Taranger J. Maturation indicators and the pubertal growth spurt. Am J Orthod. 1982;82:299-309.
29. Riesmeijer A, Prahl-Andersen B, Mascarenhas A, Joo B, Vig K. A comparison of craniofacial Class I and Class II growth patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125:463-471.
30. Stahl F, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr. Longitudinal growth changes in untreated subjects with Class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:125-137.
31. Aras A, Ada E, Saracoglu H, Gezer N, Aras I. Comparison of treatments with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in relation to skeletal maturity: a cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:616-625.
32. Jones G, Buschang P, Kim K, Oliver D. Class II non-extraction patients treated with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:332-338.
33. Fuziy A, Rodrigues de Almeida R, Janson G, Angelieri F, Pinzan A. Sagittal, vertical, and transverse changes consequent to maxillary molar distal movement with the pendulum appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:502-510.
34. Mannchen R. A critical evaluation of the Pitchfork analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2001;23:1-14.