Forsus fixed functional appliance therapy for dentoalveolar and profile correction- A case report

Abstract

Background: Class II malocclusion is one of the most common problems around the globe affecting around one-third of the patients who come for orthodontic treatment Management of class II malocclusion in adolescent patients by growth modulation is one of the most debated topics in orthodontics. Noncompliance has been a major concern for orthodontists. Case Report: This case report describes the management of class II malocclusion in an 18 year old female patient using "Forsus" fixed functional appliance system to correct her class II malocclusion. The patient was well beyond her growing years, hence the fixed functional appliance bought more of dento-alveolar changes rather than much of skeletal changes. This appliance has several advantages, as it is an operator handled device and the patient cannot remove it. It acts on the teeth and jaws for 24 hours a day, patient compliance is not a problem, and hence treatment duration is shorter. Conclusion: The profile changes and treatment results were demonstrated. This case report illustrates that, fixed functional appliances have a significant role in the management of class II malocclusion by not only promoting growth modulation, but also encouraging dento-alveolar changes once growth has completed. Both growth modulation and dento-alveolar correction minimizes the necessity of extraction of permanent teeth and probably orthognathic surgery. With proper case selection and good patient cooperation, we can obtain a significant result with the Forsus Fixed appliance. Clinical significance: Fixed functional appliances have a significant role in the management of class II malocclusion. It eliminates the massive compliance needed in removable fixed appliance therapy. Nonetheless, the growth modulation minimizes the necessity of extraction of permanent teeth and probably orthognathic surgery.

Treatment of severe crowding with constricted arches in a patient with high angle Class I malocclusion: A case report

“…If extraction of premolars is executed then the treatment plan must take into consideration for closure of extraction space which requires adequate anchorage maintenance, since mesial movement of the posterior segment may cause anchorage loss and might not fully retract anterior segment of teeth. 1,2,4,5 When canine retraction is performed first for anchorage control, only 0 to 2.4mm of molar protraction is observed. Type A anchorage has been considered favourable in such cases.…”

“…Among Angle's classification, Class I malocclusion is the most common followed by Class II and Class III and various other subclasses and divisions of malocclusion. 1,2 The need for extractions in orthodontics has always been controversial. This case presents the correction of crowding in the constricted arches with a Class I malocclusion in a patient with a vertical growth pattern, by extraction of maxillary and mandibular 1 st premolars, proper space analysis and anchorage planning followed by fixed appliance therapy using conventional MBT of 0.022×0.028 inch slot brackets.…”