The document summarizes research on various fixed appliances for managing Class II malocclusions:
1) Studies on the Xbow appliance found it resulted in mild maxillary restriction, dental effects of upper incisor palatal tipping and lower incisor labial tipping, and no significant skeletal effects on the mandible.
2) A study comparing the Xbow and Forsus appliances found they produced similar amounts of incisor inclination but the Forsus resulted in greater lower incisor proclination.
3) Research on the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) demonstrated it can effectively camouflage Class II malocclusions through maxillary restriction and dental effects like upper
3. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Xbow appliance
â˘Sample of 69 consecutive cl II patients compared to â¨
30 historical cl II controls. Retrospective study.
â˘Xbow 4,5 months; T2 ceph : 6,5 months post Xbow removal
â˘Therefore, T2 measurement include relapse of most side effect
⌠Skeletal change:
â Diminution of Mx protrusion, without md advancement
â Increase vertical dimension compare to untreated control
Flores-Mir C, Barnett G, Higgins DW, Heo G, and Major PW. Short-term skeletal and dental eďŹects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral
cephalograms. AJODO; 2009;136(6):822-832.
Flores-Mir, AJODO 2009
4. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Xbow appliance
⌠Dental change
â Overjet
⣠Correction by increase incisor proclination (IMPA â 4,7° Âą 4,1°)
⣠No mx incisor movement
â Molar relationship
⣠U6 distalize 0,9 ¹ 1,2 mm
⣠L6 mesialize 1,1 ¹ 1,3 mm
Flores-Mir C, Barnett G, Higgins DW, Heo G, and Major PW. Short-term skeletal and dental eďŹects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral
cephalograms. AJODO; 2009;136(6):822-832.
Flores-Mir, AJODO 2009
5. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Xbow vs Forsus
â˘Sample of 38 consecutive xbow appliance tx compared to â¨
36 Forsus appliance tx. Retrospective study.
â˘T1 ceph at baseline. T2 ceph at the end of tx
â˘Both appliance generate the same amount of incisors inclination
â˘The older the patient, the more OJ and upper incisors inclination remain
â˘The longer the tx time, the more the lower incisors procline
â˘Total tx time for both appliance is about the same
Flores-Mir et al AO 2013
Miller, Robert A, Long Tieu, and Carlos Flores-Mir. "Incisor Inclination Changes Produced by Two Compliance-free Class II Correction Protocols for
the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Class II Malocclusions." Angle orthodontist 83, no. 3 (2013): doi:10.2319/062712-528.1.
6. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Xbow appliance
â˘Sample of 25 consecutive cl II patients. Mean age 11,1 Âą 1,1 y.
â˘Prospective study
â˘CBCT at T0 and after debonding Xbow (T1). Tx time 6,0 m (5,0-8,0)
â˘Skeletal effect
⌠Mild SNA decrease (0,67¹ 1,35°)
Erbas, Banu, and Ilken Kocadereli. "Upper Airway Changes After Xbow Appliance Therapy Evaluated with Cone Beam Computed
Tomography." Angle Orthod 2014; 84, no. 4: doi:10.2319/072213-533.1
Erbas, A0 2014
11. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Forsus vs Cl II elastic
â˘Sample of 30 consecutive patients, 23 treated with Forsus (13,4 y), 7 with cl II
elastics (14,3 y). Prospective.
â˘Ceph T0 after alignment, ceph T1 at removal of Forsus. Tx time 6 m.
â˘No difference in skeletal effect Mx or Md
â˘Dental effect
⌠Forsus:
â 1/FH retroclined. /1-MP proclined
â SigniďŹcant increase of occlusal plane to FH
Dubois A, RomprĂŠ P, Rodrigue C, Remise C, Comparaison des eďŹets sur la croissance des maxillaires de lâutilisation du Forsus versus
celle des Êlastiques de classe II, Thèse de maÎtrise
Dubois, Master thesis U. MTL.
12. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Forsus effectiveness
â˘Retrospective study, 32 consecutive patients (12,7Âą 1,2 y) matched to 27 historical
untreated controls (12,8 Âą 1,3 y)
â˘Ceph T0 prior tx and Ceph T1 at completion of ortho therapy. Tx time 2,4 Âą 0,4 y
⌠Mean duration of FRD active phase: 5,2 ¹ 1,3 m
⌠Successful cl II correction in 87,5% of the patients
⌠Greater skeletal effect on maxillary structures by restraining sagittal advancement
of the mx (SNA â 1,6 Âą1,4°)
⌠Effect on the mandible is mainly dentoalveolar: large amount of mesial mvt of L1
(6,1° ¹ 6,3°) and L6 (2,4 ¹ 1,6 mm), extrusion of L6 (3,6 ¹ 1,5 mm)
Franchi L, Lisa Alvetro, Veronica Giuntini, Caterina Masucci, EďŹsio Defraia, and Tiziano Baccetti. "EďŹectiveness of Comprehensive Fixed Appliance Treatment Used wi
Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II Patients." Angle orthodontist 2011; 81, no. 4: doi:10.2319/102710-629.1
Franchi, A0 2011
13. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Forsus effectiveness
â˘Follow-up at 2,3 Âą 1,1 y post comprehensive tx. 36 consecutive patients/
20 historical untreated controls. Retrospective study.
⌠Mean FRD duration 4,8 ¹ 2,4 m
⌠Outcome (retrospective study)
â T1-T2: Baseline to end of ortho
â T2-T3: End of ortho to end of retention
â T1-T3: Baseline to end of retention
Cacciatore, Giorgio, Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni, Lisa Alvetro, Veronica Giuntini, and Lorenzo Franchi. "Treatment and Posttreatment EďŹects
Induced by the Forsus Appliance A Controlled Clinical Study." Angle orthodontist (2014):doi:10.2319/112613-867.1
Cacciatore, A0 2014
14. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Forsus effectiveness
â˘Follow-up
⌠T1-T2 FRD vs untreated controls
â SigniďŹcant skeletal effect on Mx (SNA â 1,7 °)
â No signiďŹcant effect on Md
â SigniďŹcant improve of dental relationship
⣠OJ -5,1mm; OB -3,1 mm; molar relationship +3,5 mm
⣠U1 retruded 1,6 mm, L1 proclined 5,6°/ 1,5 mm. â¨
L6 extruded 1.3 mm. U6: no vertical change
Cacciatore, Giorgio, Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni, Lisa Alvetro, Veronica Giuntini, and Lorenzo Franchi. "Treatment and Posttreatment EďŹects
Induced by the Forsus Appliance A Controlled Clinical Study." Angle orthodontist 2014 doi:10.2319/112613-867.1
Cacciatore, A0 2014
15. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Forsus effectiveness
â˘Follow-up
⌠T2-T3 FRD vs untreated controls
â SigniďŹcant greater increase in sagittal position of Mx (SNA â
1,4°)
â SigniďŹcantly increase of both OJ (1,3 mm) and OB (1,5 mm)
â SigniďŹcant intrusion of U1 (-1,2 mm)
Cacciatore, Giorgio, Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni, Lisa Alvetro, Veronica Giuntini, and Lorenzo Franchi. "Treatment and Posttreatment EďŹects
Induced by the Forsus Appliance A Controlled Clinical Study." Angle orthodontist 2014 doi:10.2319/112613-867.1
Cacciatore, A0 2014
16. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Forsus effectiveness
â˘Follow-up
⌠T1-T3 FRD vs untreated controls
â No signiďŹcant sagittal or vertical skeletal change
â SigniďŹcant reduction of OJ (-3,8 mm), OB (-1,5 mm)
â SigniďŹcant improvement of molar relationship (+ 3,7 mm)
â SigniďŹcant retrusion of U1 (-1,1 mm)
â SigniďŹcant intrusion of L1 (-1,2 mm)
â Success rate of overall correction: 83,3%
Cacciatore, Giorgio, Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzoni, Lisa Alvetro, Veronica Giuntini, and Lorenzo Franchi. "Treatment and Posttreatment EďŹects
Induced by the Forsus Appliance A Controlled Clinical Study." Angle orthodontist 2014 doi:10.2319/112613-867.1
Cacciatore, A0 2014
17. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Fatigue Resistant Device
â˘29 subjects, prospective study, 15 prior growth peak; 14 post growth peak.
â˘Tx time 9 months. Ceph + MRI study
⌠Palatal tipping + extrusion of mx incisors
⌠Protrusion + intrusion + labial tipping (5,5° - 6°) of md incisors
⌠Distal tipping of Mx molars
⌠Mesial movement + mesial tipping of Md molars
⌠No change in disk position
Aras, Ada, Saracoglu, Gezer, and Aras. "Comparison of Treatments with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Relation to skeletal maturity: A
cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study. AJODO 2011; 140: 616-25: doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.12.018.
Aras, AJODO 2011
20. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Twin Force Bite Corrector
â˘Sample of 23 patients before Pubertal Growth Spurt compared to 18
patients post PGS. Retrospective study.
â˘Skeletal change
⌠Mx restriction SNA â 1,22°
â˘Dental change
⌠IMPA increased 4,4° to 5,5°
Chhibber, Aditya, Madhur Upadhyay, Flavio Uribe, and Ravindra Nanda. "Mechanism of Class II Correction in Prepubertal and Postpubertal Patients with
Twin Force Bite Corrector." Angle Orthod. 2013; 83, n718-727: doi:10.2319/090412-709.1
Chhibber, A0 2013
21. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Twin Force Bite Corrector
â˘At end of ortho
⌠No difference between skeletal and dental parameters of both
groups
⌠SigniďŹcant longer tx time for the youngest group (3,67 y vs 2,75 y)
⌠Tx efďŹciency is greater for the post pubertal group
Chhibber, Aditya, Madhur Upadhyay, Flavio Uribe, and Ravindra Nanda. "Mechanism of Class II Correction in Prepubertal and Postpubertal Patients with
Twin Force Bite Corrector." Angle Orthod. 2013; 83, n718-727: doi:10.2319/090412-709.1
Chhibber, A0 2013
24. Šsylvainchamberland.com
SUS2 vs Forsus FRD
â˘Sample: 20 SUS2
, 20 Forsus, 19 controls. All post pubertal (~15 yÂą1 y)
â˘Both appliances. Tx time 5 m Âą 1 m. Prospective study.
⌠Dentoalveolar effect
â 1/: retrusion + extrusion
â /1: protrusion + intrusion
⌠No signiďŹcant skeletal effect on Mx and Md. No vertical change
⌠Soft tissue proďŹle improvement is limited
Oztoprak MO, Nalbantgil D, Uyanlar A, and Arun T. A cephalometric comparative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal
Spring. European journal of dentistry. 2012 Turkey;6(3):302-10
Oztoprak, Eur. J. Dent. 2012
25. Šsylvainchamberland.com
SUS2 vs Forsus FRD
â˘However:
⌠Lower incisors proclination more prominent with Forsus FRD
â SUS2
: âIMPA= 5,78° Âą 3,91°
â Forsus: âIMPA = 10,8° Âą 3,07°
⌠N-A-Pg: better reduction in facial convexity with SUS2
â SUS2
: -2,13°¹ 2,85°
â Forsus: + 0,65° Âą 3.04°
p < .001
p < .05
Oztoprak MO, Nalbantgil D, Uyanlar A, and Arun T. A cephalometric comparative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal
Spring. European journal of dentistry. 2012 Turkey;6(3):302-10
Oztoprak, Eur. J. Dent. 2012
26. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Study Design
Experimental groups Observation Time Point
Sample size (>25) Untreated Controls T0 Baseline T1 Prior Cl II device T2 Post Cl II device T3 End of Ortho
T4 Follow-up
Flores-Mir AJODO
2009 R
â 69 â 30 â 6 m. post Xbow
Miller AO 2013 R â 38/36 â â
Erbas AO 2014 P â 25 â â
Dubois et al P â 23 / 7 â â
Franchi AO 2011 R â 32 â 27 â â
Cacciatore AO In
press R
â 36 â 20 â â â
Aras AJODO 2011 P â 15 / 14 â â
Chhibber AO 2013
R
â 23 / 18 â â
Oztoprak EJD 2012
R
â 20 / 20 â 19 â â
27. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Poor Study Design
â˘Study about Cl II correction device are not at the level of RCT.
â˘Evidences are below that level of conďŹdence
â˘Even meta-analysis should be interprete with caution
Giuseppe Perinetti, Jasmina PrimoĹžiÄ, Giovanna Furlani, Lorenzo Franchi, and Luca Contardo (2014) Treatment effects of
ďŹxed functional appliances alone or in combination with multibracket appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The Angle Orthodontist In-Press.
30. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Inner Spring
â˘At maximum activation
⌠Spring path of 6 mm
⌠2,4 N at full compression
â˘Deactivation with hexagon screw
⌠Spring path 2,1 mm
⌠1,0 N at full compression
Spring span
Front stop
Back stop
Spring span
33. Šsylvainchamberland.com
SPEED⢠Convertible Tube
â˘Tips for bonding
⌠Adapt meshpad on the model
⌠Microetch enamel
⌠Use light bond adhesive or 2 paste system
â Extra care should be taken to ensure sufďŹcient curing time
34. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Tips for bonding
â˘Etch enamel 15s
â˘Wash, rince & dry
â˘Apply Assure sealant on the tooth & light cure
â˘Apply Assure sealant on the bracket base & light cure
â˘Wipe the bracket base into Assure paste
â˘Place on the tooth & light cure
35. Šsylvainchamberland.com
â˘Large mesh pad needs slight adjustment to obtain best ďŹt on the
buccal surface
â˘Good adaptation of the mesh pad is warrant of good bond strength
⌠Left side is not as nicely bonded than the right side
36. Šsylvainchamberland.com
SPEEDâ˘â¨
Convertible Tube
â˘Cinching a 20 x 25 SS wire in the
gum and without debonding the
tube is challenging
â˘Convertible tube permits easy
cinching outside the mouth
â˘Insertion and removal of the SS
wire takes seconds and done
without fear of debonding
37. Šsylvainchamberland.com
â˘Buccal offset of the L pin at 3-4 mm distal to the tube
⌠Longer extension may impinge over the bracket of the 7s
⌠The L ball-pin is bent gingivally or occlusally at the mesial
â After some trial and errors, I prefer occlusal bend of the L
pin
38. Šsylvainchamberland.com
L Pin
â˘Inserted distally on the eye of the telescope
â˘Inserted distally into the head gear tube
â˘Buccal offset 3-4 mm long
â˘The pin is bent gingivally or occlusally at the mesial of the tube
⌠With bonded convertible head gear tube, I prefer to bend occlusally
â˘Distal buccal offset and mesial occlusal bend are at 90° each other
40. Šsylvainchamberland.com
â˘SUS2 telescope is used without the outer turbo spring for the ďŹrst 6
weeks
â˘Turbo spring is added to maintain forward activation
AlLa110814
LaShMa080813
This is not the same case as above
90. Šsylvainchamberland.com
â˘SUS2 were engaged ~ 1 years after tx was initiated because the above
mentioned reasons
â˘SUS2 was used 36 weeks
FrRo041113
FrRo270114
The patient delayed extraction of U4 some 3 months and L6 some 9 months
95. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Does the approach really matter?
â˘Most studies showed
⌠Some restriction of Mx forward growth
⌠No signiďŹcant increase of Md growth
⌠SigniďŹcant dentoalveolar change at end of ortho
⌠Class II correction is maintained at 2 y follow-up (83%)
⌠No signiďŹcant skeletal change at 2 y follow up.
96. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Side effect
â˘Incisor proclination occurred in spite of arch wire cinchback and -6° torque
embed in the brackets (19x25 into .22 slot)
â˘Wire-slot interplay should be reduce
⌠20x25 or 21x25 SS wire + cinchback
â˘TADs + Cl II correction device reduce lower incisors proclination
⌠/1 change 3,61° ¹ 5,07° vs 9,29° ¹ 3,81°
â˘Extraction + cl II correction device: good marriage when space is necessary
along cl II correction
Cacciatore G, et al AO in press
Aslan B, et al AO 2014;84;76-87
97. Šsylvainchamberland.com
Cost
â˘SUS2 : 135$ buy 3 get 1 (101$). One size ďŹts all
â˘Forsus: 260$, need large inventory for all different sizes.
⌠Must buy > 15000$ annually to get 50% discountâŚ
â˘TFBC: 239$ buy 4 get 1 (210$) ( 2 lenght sizes + double lock or anchor
wire)
â˘XBow: 220$ + 260$ =480$
â˘Esprit corrector : ~ 169$
101/260 = 39%