Objectives: To evaluate the use of direct miniplate anchorage in conjunction with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) in treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight females with skeletal Class II were randomly allocated to the Forsus plus miniplates (FMP) group (16 patients, age 12.5 ± 0.9 years), Forsus alone (FFRD; 16 patients, age 12.1 ± 0.9 years), or the untreated control group (16 subjects, age 12.1 ± 0.9 years). After leveling and alignment, miniplates were inserted in the mandibular symphysis in the FMP group. The FFRD was inserted directly on the miniplates in the FMP group and onto the mandibular archwires in the FFRD group. The appliances were removed after reaching an edge-to-edge incisor relationship. Results: Data from 46 subjects were analyzed. The effective mandibular length significantly increased in the FMP group only (4.05 ± 0.78). The mandibular incisors showed a significant proclination in the FFRD group (9.17 ± 2.42) and a nonsignificant retroclination in the FMP group (−1.49 ± 4.70). The failure rate of the miniplates was reported to be 13.3%. Conclusions: The use of miniplates with the FFRD was successful in increasing the effective mandibular length in Class II malocclusion subjects in the short term. The miniplate-anchored FFRD eliminated the unfavorable mandibular incisor proclination in contrast to the conventional FFRD.

The studies reviewed provide insufficient evidence to form a conclusion regarding the effects of the use of skeletal anchorage with FFA. The available weak evidence suggests that the use of skeletal anchorage with FFA has no superior skeletal effects but is able to reduce proclination of the lower incisors.

Objectives To evaluate anchorage control using miniscrews vs an Essix appliance in treatment of Class II malocclusion by distalization using the Carrière Motion Appliance (CMA). Materials and Methods Twenty-four postpubertal female patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion were randomly distributed into two equal groups. CMA was bonded in both groups, and one group was treated with miniscrews as anchorage (12 patients, mean age = 18.0 years) while the other group was treated with an Essix appliance as anchorage (12 patients, mean age = 17.8 years). For each patient, two cone-beam computed tomographic scans were obtained: one preoperatively and another after completion of distalization. Results In the Essix appliance group, there was a statistically significant anterior movement (2.2 ± 1.43 mm) as well as proclination of the lower incisor (5.3° ± 4.0°), compared to a nonsignificant anterior movement (0.06 ± 1.45 mm) and proclination (0.86° ± 2.22°) in the miniscrew group. The amount of maxillary molar distalization was higher in the miniscrew group (2.57 ± 1.52 mm) than in the Essix appliance group (1.53 ± 1.11 mm); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions Miniscrews led to a decrease in the amount of anchorage loss in the mandibular incisors, both in terms of anterior movement and proclination.

The current available data provide insufficient and weak evidence to form a solid and firm conclusion. There is poor, very low-quality evidence regarding the positional and dimensional effects of posterior crossbite correction on the TMJs.

No abstract