Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator, associated with fixed appliances.MethodsThe sample comprised 77 young individuals divided into 3 groups: Group 1 consisted of 25 patients treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.15 years; group 2 had 30 patients, treated with the Bionator and fixed appliances, for a mean treatment time of 3.92 years; and the control group included 22 subjects followed for a mean period of 2.13 years. The initial and final lateral cephalograms of the patients were evaluated. Intergroup comparison at the initial stage and of the treatment changes were performed by analysis of variance.ResultsTheir effects consisted in a restrictive effect on the maxilla, a slight increase in anterior face height, retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors, labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors in both groups and intrusion with the Jasper Jumper appliance, maxillary molar distalization with the Jasper Jumper, extrusion and mesialization of the mandibular molars, both appliances provided significant improvement of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite and molar relationship.ConclusionsThe effects of both appliances in class II malocclusion treatment are similar; however, treatment with the Jasper Jumper was shorter than with the Bionator.

Optimization of Class II Malocclusion Treatments Using the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistance Device and Its Post-Treatment Effect in Adult Patients: A Case Report

“…The treatment option was, then, the use of the Forsus fixed functional appliance because it is easy to instalatt [10,11,13] and, mainly, because it provides comfort to patient, allowing greater freedom to the eccentric and centric mandible movements [7,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]33,34], and, also, better resistance [10,13] and performance with light forces (average of 220 to 250g) [15,35]. Other functional appliances, such as the Herbst and the Jasper-jumper, provide, in a long-term run, the same dentoskeletal results as the hybrid appliances [8,11,12,18,19,[21][22][23]25]. However, the Herbst appliance, because it is stiff and restricts mandibular move, it is considered extremely uncomfortable to adult patients, in addition to presenting high breakage levels and complex installation [10,22,26].…”

“…The decision to treat this case using the Forsus hybrid functional appliance was taken due to the patient's main complaint, the characteristics of the malocclusion and, mainly, the facial features that have shown facial asymmetry within the normal standards, i.e., convex profile, but with passive lip seal, harmonic nasolabial angle and horizontal growth pattern [1,2,[4][5][6]8,9,12,25,28,30,33,34,35]. Other treatment options were considered unfavorable due to the presented clinical condition and the patient's main complaint and treatment choice.…”

“…Based on this and supported by the literature, it was possible to consider and suggest some treatment options to the patient, such as a surgical-orthodontic treatment [20,38]; upper first molar extractions [39,40], the use of intermaxillary Class II elastics [24,41], which would need patient cooperation; and the use of fixed functional appliances-rigid [18,19,[21][22][23]25], semi-rigid [8,11,12,37], but, mainly, hybrid appliances as the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device [3,7,11,[13][14][15]17,[32][33][34]35]. The chosen protocol was to use the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device that has shown to be an effective device, providing greater comfort to patients [7,11,[14][15][16][17]33,34] and good resistance [10,13,15,35] when treating Class II malocclusions.…”

“…Such considerations occurred due to the lack of studies comparing the control group, presenting the same malocclusion, to the treated group [5,6], the lack of patient's cooperation [7][8][9], the use of removable orthopedic devices in growing patients [8], the high breakage rate of fixed orthopedic appliances [10][11][12][13], and, discomfort caused to patients by the use of removable and fixed orthopedic devices [10,11,13]. In the twenty-first century, the launch of the Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device brought a new proposal to treatments, considering patient comfort in the set-up day and along the treatment, due to the lack of mandibular postural change and easiness of performing the functional mandibular movements [7,11,[14][15][16][17].…”

“…The mechanism of the dentoalveolar action of such devices over the upper anterior [2,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]14,15,17,28,36,37] and posterior teeth [3,6,[8][9][10][11]13,35,36] and over the lower anterior [5,6,8,[9][10][11][13][14][15]17,28,[35][36][37] and posterior teeth [3,8,[9][10][11]14,17] are often responsible for the clockwise shift of the occlusal [5,9,10,16,17,35] and palatal [2] planes, generating a clockwise resultant on the mandibular plane …”