Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

16-07-2021 | Original article

Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions

A randomized controlled clinical study

Authors: Mehmet Ali Yavan, Aysegul Gulec, Metin Orhan

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects of reverse Forsus (RF; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) and facemask/rapid palatal expansion (FM/RPE) appliances in growing subjects with class III malocclusions.

Methods

The data of this prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) were derived from pre- and posttreatment/observation lateral cephalograms of 45 subjects with mild class III malocclusions: group 1 (8 girls, 7 boys; mean age 10.54 years) received a FM/RPE appliance; group 2 (6 girls, 9 boys; mean age 10.49 years) received the RF appliance; and an untreated control group (7 girls, 8 boys; mean age 10.66 years) was matched to the treatment groups with regard to sagittal skeletal and dental classifications. Angular and linear measurements were evaluated using lateral cephalograms. Statistical analyses were performed by one-way analysis of variance, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Kruskal–Wallis, paired-samples t‑test, and Wilcoxon test, whereby p < 0.05 was accepted to be statistically significant.

Results

The intermaxillary (ANB), interdental (overjet), and sagittal lip relations in the FM/RPE and RF groups showed significant improvements compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Although the anterior and inferior traction of the maxilla was greater in the FM/RPE group compared to the RF group (p < 0.05), both treatment groups showed similar clockwise rotation of the mandible compared to the control group. While significantly more proclination of maxillary incisors occurred in the RF group compared to the FM/RPE and control groups (p < 0.05), both treatments led to significantly retroclined mandibular incisors compared to the control group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Both therapies led to intermaxillary and interdental improvements. The RF appliance had a limited effect on the maxilla and it mostly had dentoalveolar effects when compared to FM/RPE therapy.

Ellis E III, McNamara JA Jr (1984) Components of adult class III malocclusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42:295–305CrossRef

Sanborn RT (1955) Differences between the facial skeletal patterns of class III malocclusion and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod 25:208–222

Macdonald KE, Kapust AJ, Turley PK (1999) Cephalometric changes after the correction of class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion/facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116:13–24CrossRef

Mandall N, DiBiase A, Littlewood S, Nute S, Stivaros N, McDowall R et al (2010) Is early class III protraction facemask treatment effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15-month follow-up. J Orthod 37:149–161CrossRef

Seiryu M, Ida H, Mayama A, Sasaki S, Sasaki S, Deguchi T et al (2020) A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes of mild skeletal class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew for anchorage in growing patients: a single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod 90:3–12CrossRef

Şar Ç, Arman-Özçırpıcı A, Uçkan S, Yazıcı AC (2011) Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:636–649CrossRef

Campbell PM (1983) The dilemma of class III treatment: early or late? Angle Orthod 53:175–191

Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA (2016) Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 38:113–126CrossRef

Vogt W (2006) The forsus fatigue resistant device. Journal of clinical orthodontics. J Clin Orthod 40:368

10.

Martina R, D’Antò V, De Simone V, Galeotti A, Rongo R, Franchi L (2020) Cephalometric outcomes of a new orthopaedic appliance for class III malocclusion treatment. Eur J Orthod 42:187–192CrossRef

11.

Rakosi T III (1997) Treatment of class III malocclusions. Dentofacial orthopedics with functional appliances. CV Mosby, pp 461–480

12.

Hassel B, Farman AG (1995) Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107:58–66CrossRef

13.

Van Acker J, Pauwels N, Cauwels R, Rajasekharan S (2020) Outcomes of different radioprotective precautions in children undergoing dental radiography: a systematic review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 21:463–508CrossRef

14.

Björk A, Skieller V (1983) Normal and abnormal growth of the mandible. A synthesis of longitudinal cephalometric implant studies over a period of 25 years. Eur J Orthod 5:1–46CrossRef

15.

Seehra J, Fleming PS, Mandall N, Dibiase AT (2012) A comparison of two different techniques for early correction of class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 82:96–101CrossRef

16.

Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Statistical methods for medical and biological students

17.

Ngan P, Hägg U, Yiu C, Merwin D, Wei SH (1996) Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 109:38–49CrossRef

18.

Arman A, Toygar TU, Abuhijleh E (2004) Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 74:733–740

19.

Cozza P, Marino A, Mucedero M (2004) An orthopaedic approach to the treatment of class III malocclusions in the early mixed dentition. Eur J Orthod 26:191–199CrossRef

20.

Ucem TT, Ucuncu N, Yuksel S (2004) Comparison of double-plate appliance and facemask therapy in treating class III malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:672–679CrossRef

21.

Kapust AJ, Sinclair PM, Turley PK (1998) Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in class III children: a comparison of three age groups. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113:204–212CrossRef

22.

Gencer D, Kaygisiz E, Yüksel S, Tortop T (2015) Comparison of double-plate appliance/facemask combination and facemask therapy in treating class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 85:278–283CrossRef

23.

Chen L, Chen R, Yang Y, Ji G, Shen G (2012) The effects of maxillary protraction and its long-term stability—a clinical trial in Chinese adolescents. Eur J Orthod 34:88–95CrossRef

24.

Gallagher R, Miranda F, Buschang P (1998) Maxillary protraction: treatment and posttreatment effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113:612–619CrossRef

25.

Shanker S, Ngan P, Wade D, Beck M, Yiu C, Hägg U et al (1996) Cephalometric A point changes during and after maxillary protraction and expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110:423–430CrossRef

26.

Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Merwin D, Wei SH (1996) Treatment response to maxillary expansion and protraction. Eur J Orthod 18:151–168CrossRef

27.

Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA Jr (2000) Treatment and posttreatment craniofacial changes after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:404–413CrossRef

28.

Tortop T, Keykubat A, Yuksel S (2007) Facemask therapy with and without expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:467–474CrossRef

29.

Vaughn GA, Mason B, Moon H‑B, Turley PK (2005) The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:299–309CrossRef

30.

Atilla AO (2007) Comparison of the effects face mask application during or after rapid maxillary expansion on maxillary and mandibular structures in growing children with class III malocclusion. SDÜ Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü,

31.

Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A (2000) Evaluation of the modified maxillary protractor applied to class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 118:549–559CrossRef

32.

Smith SW, English JD (1999) Orthodontic correction of a class III malocclusion in an adolescent patient with a bonded RPE and protraction face mask. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 116:177–183CrossRef

33.

Ngan P, Yiu C, Hu A, Hagg U, Wei SH, Gunel E (1998) Cephalometric and occlusal changes following maxillary expansion and protraction. Eur J Orthod 20:237–254CrossRef

34.

Merwin D, Ngan P, Hagg U, Yiu C, Wei SH (1997) Timing for effective application of anteriorly directed orthopedic force to the maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:292–299CrossRef

35.

Lombardo EC, Franchi L, Lione R, Chiavaroli A, Cozza P, Pavoni C (2020) Evaluation of sagittal airway dimensions after face mask therapy with rapid maxillary expansion in class III growing patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 130:109794CrossRef

36.

Kim J‑H, Viana MA, Graber TM, Omerza FF, BeGole EA (1999) The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 115:675–685CrossRef

37.

Eissa O, ElShennawy M, Gaballah S, ElMehy G, El-Bialy T (2018) Treatment of class III malocclusion using miniscrew-anchored inverted forsus FRD: controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod 88:692–701CrossRef

38.

Türkiye Atom Enerjisi Kurumu (2018) Homepage. http://www.taek.gov.tr/belgeler-formlar/mevzuat/kanunlar/TAEK-Kanunu/. Accessed 6 July 2018

39.

European Union, European Commission (2004) Radiation protection 136. European guidelines on radiation protection in dental radiology. Office for Official Publications of the EC, Luxembourg

40.

Khiroya R (2013) Dose optimisation in contemporary digital lateral cephalometry. University of Birmingham, Birmingham

Title: Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions
A randomized controlled clinical study
Authors: Mehmet Ali Yavan
Aysegul Gulec
Metin Orhan
Publication date: 16-07-2021
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00330-1

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions

A randomized controlled clinical study

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Evaluation of external apical root resorption caused by fixed functional treatment of class II malocclusion

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Ex vivo assessment of the buccal and oral bone by CBCT

Upper arch dimensional changes with clear aligners in the early mixed dentition

Floating norms for individualising the ANB angle and the WITS appraisal in orthodontic cephalometric analysis based on guiding variables

Does unilateral surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME) lead to perinasal asymmetry?