Comparison of dentoskeletal changes in skeletal class II cases using two different fixed functional appliances: Forsus fatigue resistant device and powerscope class II corrector-A clinical study

• Published in: Journal of international oral health 2021-05, Vol.13 (3), p.234-244
• Main Authors: Varghese, Remmiya, Subramanian, Aravind, Sreenivasagan, Swapna
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Care and treatment; Dental occlusion; Incisors; Malocclusion; Mandible; Maxilla; Molars; Orthodontic appliances; Orthodontics; Patient outcomes; Patients; Statistical analysis; Statistics
• ISSN: 0976-7428; 0976-1799
• DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_246_20

Aim: To compare the dentoskeletal changes of patients diagnosed with skeletal class II (14-16 years of age) treated with Forsus fatigue resistant device (FFRD) and Powerscope class II corrector (PS). Materials and Methods: The study is a prospective clinical study, with a sample of 12 patients who were diagnosed with skeletal class II with a CVMI stage IV and at the end of the leveling and aligning phase of a fixed multibracket orthodontic therapy. A total of 17 patients were included in this study by using a simple randomization method, which used sealed opaque envelopes; five patients dropped out during the course of the study. Data were analyzed for 12 patients, and each group comprised six patients. The FFRD was compared with the PS. Lateral cephalograms, photographs, and study models of the patients were obtained for the analysis. Statistical analysis was done by using SPSS software. The statistical analysis performed comprised Dahlberg's error test, paired T test, and independent T test. Results: Treatment effects demonstrated that the Forsus and Powerscope had significant restraint of the maxilla. Vertical changes as seen by assessing FH-MP and OP-SN angles were found to be increased in both groups. Lower incisors moved labially by 2.5 mm in the Powerscope group and 1.98 mm in the Forsus group, which also contributed to the correction of the overjet. Linear measurements showed that the Powerscope led to a greater mandibular lengthening (4.06 mm) as compared with that of Forsus (3 mm). Anterior mandibular displacement accounted for 3.23 mm of 5.10 mm by using Powerscope appliance and 3.16 mm of 4.90 by using Forsus appliance. Conclusions: Pre- and posttreatment changes were statistically significant for both FFRDs and PS. Both the PS and FFRD are acceptable compliance-free appliances for class II correction. The PS has a greater restraint on the maxilla, more forward displacement of mandibular molars, and lower incisor proclination as compared with the Forsus appliance.