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

Author(s):  
Prajwal Shetty ◽  
Mukul Shetty ◽  
Maitreyi Chalapati ◽  
Chaitra Kori ◽  
Crystal Runa Soans ◽  
...  

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

2014 ◽  
Vol 08 (02) ◽  
pp. 276-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mevlut Celikoglu ◽  
Tuba Unal ◽  
Mehmet Bayram ◽  
Celal Candirli

ABSTRACTBased on our literature search, we found that the use of miniplate anchorage with Forsus fatigue-resistance device (FRD) has not yet been reported. Therefore, the aim of the present case report was to present the treatment of a patient with skeletal Class II malocclusion with mandibular retrusion using Forsus FRD with miniplate anchorage. Fixed appliances with 0.022-inch slots were attached to the maxillary teeth and after 8 months of the leveling and alignment of the upper arch, 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was inserted and cinched back. Two weeks after the placement of the miniplates bilaterally at the symphysis of the mandible, Forsus FRD was adjusted to the miniplates with a 35-mm length of rod chosen. Nine months after the skeletal anchored Forsus worn, Class I canine and molar relations were achieved and overjet was eliminated.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-81
Author(s):  
Akram Ansari ◽  
Abhay Kumar Jain ◽  
Ankit Singh ◽  
Priya Sharma ◽  
Muneeb Adil

Class II malocclusion in pubertal phase presents a major and a common challenge to orthodontists. Proper diagnosis and treatment planning in early stage help in preventing and intercepting the severity of malocclusion. In pubertal phase skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion are best treated with functional appliance. In recent time PowerScope fixed functional appliance is gaining immense popularity as noncompliant Class II corrector. In the present case report an adolescent male patient having Class II division 1 malocclusion with functional jaw retrusion was treated using MBT 0.022” prescription and PowerScope appliance. 7-8 months of PowerScope wear obtained stable and successful results with improvement in facial profile, skeletal jaw relationship and mild increase in IMPA. It can thus be concluded that PowerScope gives good results in Class II correction with a combination of patient comfort and ease of use that was unmatched among other appliances


2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-68
Author(s):  
Suresh Gorantla ◽  
Madhurima Thokala ◽  
Darsana Maru ◽  
Prabhakar Veginadu ◽  
Sudha Sravani Konathala

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-68
Author(s):  
Suresh Gorantla ◽  
Madhurima Thokala ◽  
Darsana Maru ◽  
Prabhakar Veginadu ◽  
Sudha Sravani Konathala

Author(s):  
Gero Kinzinger ◽  
Jens Ostheimer ◽  
Frank Förster ◽  
Paul B. Kwandt ◽  
Helmut Reul ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 030157422110044
Author(s):  
Gabbie Jasmine Kaur ◽  
Geetanjali Gandhi ◽  
Mannu Khanna ◽  
Anju Loomba ◽  
Atul Sharma

Background: Though studies have been conducted on the PowerScope, not many researches are available in the literature which compare its effects with other fixed functional appliances. Therefore, the aim of our study was cephalometric evaluation and comparison of the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes brought about by the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device and PowerScope appliance. Materials and Methods: Pre and Posttreatment cephalometric records of 20 patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with fixed functional appliances (Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device and PowerScope) were compared. Values of various cephalometric parameters were used to evaluate the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes. Wilcoxon signed-rank test (intragroup comparison) and Mann–Whitney U test (intergroup) were used to see significant differences in the parameters ( P ≤ .05). Results: Both the appliances were successful in correcting the Class II discrepancy. Skeletal changes were seen significantly in both the groups, though they were more in the Forsus patients. Dentoalveolar changes were predominantly seen in PowerScope patients. Also, an improvement in soft tissue profile was seen in both the groups. Conclusion: From our study, we concluded that the PowerScope and the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device are equally good options for the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion due to a retrognathic mandible, as they achieve changes in all the three aspects: skeletal, dentoalveolar and soft tissue.


Folia Medica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-263
Author(s):  
Anirudh Kalra ◽  
Vinit Swami ◽  
Veera Bhosale

Aim: To study the skeletal, dental effects and evaluate the soft tissue changes with PowerScope-fixed functional appliance in class II malocclusion. Materials and methods: This clinical study was carried out where a total of 10 growing (CVMS 3 and 4) Class II Division 1 malocclusion patients, indicated for treatment with fixed functional appliance were allocated based on specific inclusion criteria. PowerScope (American Orthodontics) was used as the fixed functional appliance. Skeletal, dental and soft tissue effects of the appliance with various angular and linear parameters on a digital lateral cephalogram were evaluated for all 10 participants. Records were collected before the insertion of PowerScope appliance (T0) and after 5 months, during the appliance removal (T1). All participants were treated with 0.018ʺ×0.025ʺ MBT (3M Unitek) prescription. Statistical analysis was performed using a paired t-test to compare individual mean changes for each treatment category.  Results: Statistically significant changes were seen in skeletal parameters such as forward positioning of the mandible with an increase in SNB angle and N perpendicular-Pogonion distance, the class II jaw base relationship improved with reduction in ANB angle and Wits appraisal. Significant changes were observed in dental parameters such as forward positioning of mandibular incisors, maxillary molar distalization and intrusion with reduction in overbite and overjet respectively. In the soft tissue, a significant improvement in facial profile was seen due to an increase in labiomental angle. Conclusions: The results of this study have shown that statistically significant changes in skeletal, dental and soft tissue parameters


2007 ◽  
Vol 131 (4) ◽  
pp. 490-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciana Bocudo Hoffelder ◽  
Eduardo Martinelli Santayana de Lima ◽  
Fernando Lima Martinelli ◽  
Ana Maria Bolognese

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document