The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2012 ) > List of Articles

CASE REPORT

Biomechanical and Clinical Considerations in correcting Skeletal Class II Malocclusion with ForsusTM

P Sudhakar, Sunil Arora, Amit Maheshwari, D Praveen Kumar Varma, Sai Prakash Adusumilli, Bhaskar Mummidi, A Radhika

Citation Information : Sudhakar P, Arora S, Maheshwari A, Varma DP, Adusumilli SP, Mummidi B, Radhika A. Biomechanical and Clinical Considerations in correcting Skeletal Class II Malocclusion with ForsusTM. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (6):918-924.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1254

Published Online: 00-12-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The present case report describes the importance of understanding of biomechanical and clinical considerations in application of Forsus appliance in correction of class II skeletal malocclusion.

Background

Angle's class II malocclusion is one of the most prevailing that may be either skeletal or dental presenting with different clinical manifestations. There are number of appliances to treat such a malocclusion in a growing child. Fixed functional appliances are indicated for class II corrections in patients who report late with minimal residual growth left.

Case description

A case of class II skeletal and dental malocclusion treated with preadjusted edgewise appliance supplemented with Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) (3M Unitek Corp, California, USA) is reported.

Conclusion

Forsus device is an effective alternative in treating moderate skeletal class II malocclusion. The Forsus FRD (3M Unitek Corp, California, USA) can be used instead of class II elastics in mild cases and in place of Herbst appliance in severe cases.

Alteration of force vector by modifying the archwire as shown in this case report while applying Forsus and incorporation of 10 degree labial root torque in lower archwire will minimize the effects on dentition.

Engaging modules or tubing on to the pushrod and leaving 1 to 2 mm clearance between distal end of the upper tube and L-pin as shown in this case report will significantly improve the patient compliance.

Clinical significance

Much emphasis should be given to biomechanical considerations which were discussed in this article while treating patients with Forsus to prevent the unwanted effects.

Clinical considerations and certain modifications advised in this case report should be utilized while treating class II skeletal malocclusions with Forsus appliance to eliminate the patient cooperation factor and make treatment time estimates much more accurate.

How to cite this article

Adusumilli SP, Sudhakar P, Mummidi B, Varma DPK, Arora S, Radhika A, Maheshwari A. Biomechanical and Clinical Considerations in correcting Skeletal Class II Malocclusion with ForsusTM. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13(6):918-924.


PDF Share
  1. Treatment of skeletal problems in children. Contemporary Orthodontics (4th ed). St Louis: Elsevier Mosby 2007;495-96.
  2. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy. Am J Orthod 1985 Aug;88(2):91-110.
  3. Treatment effects of the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989 Feb;95(2):138-47.
  4. Clinical relevance of step-by-step mandibular advancement in the treatment of mandibular retrusion using the Frankel appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989 Oct;96(4):333-41.
  5. Frankel appliance therapy: Orthopedic or orthodontic? Am J Orthod 1983 Feb;83(2):89-108.
  6. Changes in mandibular length before, during and after successful orthopedic correction of class II malocclusions, using a functional appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991 Mar;99(3):241-57.
  7. Functional appliances: A review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989 Mar;95(3):250-58.
  8. The forsus fatigue resistant device. J Clin Orthod 2006 Jun;40(6):368-77.
  9. Effects of headgear herbst and mandibular step-by-step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of mandible. Eur J Orthod 2002 Apr;24(2):167-74.
  10. Condylar growth and mandibular positioning with stepwise vs maximum advancement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Oct;134(4):525-36.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.