BACKGROUND The Forsus fatigue resistant device (FFRD) appliance is known to correct Class II malocclusion. The disadvantage of it are labial flaring of lower incisors, distalisation and extrusion of maxillary molars, difficulty in procuring the appliances in remote areas and cost. No research has documented the comparison of patient’s experience with FFRD and Sharma’s Class II corrector appliance. Therefore, a questionnaire survey was conducted. METHODS 40 patients having Class II Division 1 malocclusion were included and were divided into two groups- FFRD appliance (group 1, 20 patients) and Sharma’s Class II corrector (group 2, 20 patients). A questionnaire was framed that consisted of 15 questions. Descriptive and analytical statistics was done using SPSS software. The difference in proportions was calculated by chi-square test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS 30 % of cases in group 2 indicated that the Sharma’s Class II corrector looks good (Q1) as compared to 15 % in group 1. (P = 0.630) 5 % indicated it was not aesthetic in group 2 as compared to 10 % in group 1. 30 % of cases in group 1 indicated that there were problems associated with speech as compared to 0 % in group 2. (P < 0.05). Values were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Sharma’s Class II corrector has similar patient acceptance as compared to FFRD appliance with the additional benefit of cost effectiveness. Hence, this can be considered as a better option in treating Class II malocclusion with fixed therapy. KEY WORDS FFRD, Fixed Function Appliance, Economic Orthodontics, Growth Modification, Sharma’s Class II Corrector

No abstract

No abstract

The present study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes in skeletal Class II division 1 cases treated with Twin Block and Clear Block appliances using a cephalogram. A total of 40 patients of age between 12-14 years were randomly divided into two equal groups. Group 1: treated with Twin Block appliance and Group 2: treated with Clear Block appliance. The pre-treatment lateral cephalogram was taken and skeletal, dental, and soft tissue parameters were evaluated and the appliance was delivered. After 8 months, another lateral cephalogram of all the cases was taken and analyzed. The pre and post-treatment values were compared between the two groups. The pre-treatment cases were almost comparable in skeletal, dental, and soft tissue features in both groups. There was a significant change in mandibular growth by SNB angle. The retrusion and extrusion of maxillary incisors as well as a proclination and extrusion of mandibular incisors were seen in group 1 while no change was observed in group 2. Treatment with Clear Block appliances has shown significant and favorable Skeletal, Dental and Soft tissue changes which are similar to already proven by the Twin Block appliance. Clear Block provides an esthetic and less bulky option for growth modification with similar results as compared to conventional Twin Block with the additional benefit of preventing lower incisor proclination.

BACKGROUND The overall success of orthodontic treatment depends on both bonding as well as debonding techniques. The debonding procedure in orthodontics consists of removal of the attachments (brackets, bondable tubes & buttons) as well as all the adhesive resin from the teeth without causing any permanent damage and to restore the teeth to their pre-treatment stage. The demand for more aesthetic appliance led to the introduction of direct bonding techniques and has made banded attachments almost obsolete in present-day orthodontics. These procedures should not be painful to the patient or damaging to enamel and to obtain these objectives a correct debonding technique is of fundamental importance. The debonding procedure is as essential as bonding for the overall success of the orthodontic treatment. In an attempt to increase the bond strength of orthodontic appliances, we have neglected the fact that these appliances have to be debonded at the end of the treatment. In orthodontics debonding refers to debracketing that is removal of brackets, bondable tubes, buttons, and the adhesive used to bond as well as to restore the form and surface of tooth to its best possible original form by avoiding any type of iatrogenic damage. For achieving such objectives, an accurate debonding procedure is of utmost importance, else it could be needlessly lengthy and painful to the patient and damaging to the enamel. Many researches have been carried out to conclude the best techniques for debonding which will give an ideal finish for the tooth when treatment is terminated. The debonding procedure is mostly done by mechanical means, but its technique should be varied according to the bracket material and type. KEY WORDS Debonding Techniques, Metal Brackets, Ceramic Brackets, Enamel Damage