Three-dimensional Cone-beam Computed Technology Evaluation of Effects of AdvanSync and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device on Mandibular Anterior Teeth
K Roopa, Anup Belludi, Amit Rekhawat, Sujala Durgekar, Sumitra Reddy
AdvanSync2 appliance, Class II malocclusion, Cone-beam computed tomography, Forsus fatigue resistant device
Citation Information :
Roopa K, Belludi A, Rekhawat A, Durgekar S, Reddy S. Three-dimensional Cone-beam Computed Technology Evaluation of Effects of AdvanSync and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device on Mandibular Anterior Teeth. World J Dent 2023; 14 (3):245-253.
Aim: To compare the effects of AdvanSync and Forsus appliance on mandibular anterior teeth in the correction of Class II malocclusion using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and methods: A total of 20 patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion (age—13–29 years) were divided into two groups of 10 patients each (group I—AdvanSync, group II—Forsus). CBCT scans were taken at T0 (prefixed functional therapy) and at T1 (after 6–12 months of fixed functional therapy) to evaluate apical root resorption, changes in tooth inclinations, marginal bone height, and labio-lingual bone thickness at the mid-root and apical level in mandibular anterior teeth. Measured data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test and Mann–Whitney U test.
Results: Between the groups, parameters like root resorption and incisor inclination showed no significant changes, while parameters like bone height and thickness showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The marginal bone height on the labial side of the canine decreased significantly for the Forsus group. At the mid-root level, the bone thickness was reduced on the labial side of the central incisors in the AdvanSync group, while it increased on the lingual side of lateral incisors for the Forsus group. At the apex, deposition was seen in the labial aspect of canines in the AdvanSync group, whereas it was on the lingual side of lateral incisors in the Forsus group.
Conclusion: Fixed functional therapy causes a significant amount of root resorption, proclination, and changes in the alveolar bone height and thickness in the mandibular anterior region, irrespective of the type of appliance.
Clinical significance: Both appliances are effective in the correction of Class II malocclusion with similar results. Adverse effects seen with fixed functional appliances should be minimized, which shows that proper case selection is necessary to achieve better treatment results.
Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Moray LJ. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1998;13(2):97–106.
McNamara JA Jr, Brudon WL, V Kokich. Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Ann Arbor, Mich: Needham Press, Inc; 2001;73.
Al-Jewair TS, Preston CB, Moll EM, et al. A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2012;82(5):907–914. DOI: 10.2319/090411-569.1
Cacciatore G, Alvetro L, Defraia E, et al. Active-treatment effects of the Forsus fatigue resistant device during comprehensive class II correction in growing patients. Korean J Orthod 2014;44(3):136–142. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.3.136
Rekhawat A, Durgekar SG, Reddy S. Evaluation of root resorption, tooth inclination and changes in supporting bone in class II malocclusion patients treated with forsus appliance. Turk J Orthod 2020;33(1):21–30. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19037
Schwartz JP, Raveli TB, Schwartz-Filho HO, et al. Changes in alveolar bone support induced by the Herbst appliance: a tomographic evaluation. Dent Press J Orthod 2016;21(2):95–101. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.095-101.oar
Tieu L, Normando D, Toogood R, et al. External apical root resorption generated by Forsus simultaneously with brackets vs. Xbow followed by brackets to correct class II malocclusions. J World Fed Orthod 2015;4(3):120–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2015.07.001
Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, et al. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140(5):734–744. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021
Gerszweski C, Topolski F, Correr GM, et al. Dentoalveolar evaluation of lower incisors by CBCT after treatment with Herbst appliance. Braz Dent J 2018;29(6):562–568. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201802382
Karacay S, Akin E, Olmez H, et al. Forsus nitinol flat spring and jasper jumper corrections of class II division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2006;76(4):666–672. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0666:FNFSAJ]2.0.CO;2
Heinrichs DA, Shammaa I, Martin C, et al. Treatment effects of a fixed intermaxillary device to correct class II malocclusions in growing patients. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):45. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0045-x
Bilgiç F, Başaran G, Hamamci O. Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in the treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusions. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19(2):445–451. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1237-y
Berco M, Rigali PH Jr, Miner RM, et al. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(1):17–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.021
Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V, et al. Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2011;81(4):678–683. DOI: 10.2319/102710-629.1
Giuntini V, Vangelisti A, Masucci C, et al. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance vs the Forsus fatigue resistant device in growing class II patients. Angle Orthod 2015;85(5):784–789. DOI: 10.2319/090514-624.1
Linjawi AI, Abbassy MA. Dentoskeletal effects of the ForsusTM fatigue resistance device in the treatment of class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthod Sci 2018;7:5. DOI: 10.4103/jos.JOS_80_17
Brezniak N, Wasserstein A. Root resorption after orthodontic treatment: part 1. Literature review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103(1):62–66. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70106-X
Tieu LD, Saltaji H, Normando D, et al. Radiologically determine orthodontically induced external apical root resorption in incisors after non-surgical orthodontic treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion: a systematic review. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):48. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0048-7
Nakada T, Motoyoshi M, Horinuki E, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of the association of cortical plate proximity and apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment. J Oral Sci 2016;58(2):231–236. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.15-0566
Dudic A, Giannopoulou C, Leuzinger M, et al. Detection of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment by using panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography of super-high resolution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(4):434–437. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.10.014
Hansen K, Koutsonas TG, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment on the mandibular incisor segment: a cephalometric and biometric investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;112(1):92–103. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70279-8
Garlock DT, Buschang PH, Araujo EA, et al. Evaluation of marginal alveolar bone in the anterior mandible with pretreatment and posttreatment computed tomography in nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149(2):192–201. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.034
Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, et al. Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod 2016;38(2):113–126. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv034