A cephalometric comparative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS²) and Forsus FRD appliances

ABSTRACT

Objectives:The purpose of this clinical prospective study was to compare the dentofacial changes produced by the Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS²) and Forsus FRD appliances in late adolescent patients with Class II malocclusion, and quantify them in comparison with an untreated group.

Methods: The study was carried out on 59 patients with skeletal and dental Class II malocclusion due to retrognatic mandible. Among these, 20 were treated with SUS², 20 were treated with FRD, and no treatment was done to 19 subjects as the control group. 36 cephalometric landmarks were identified on each lateral cephalometric radiograph.

Results:The effects of both appliances were dentoalveolar and no significant vertical and sagittal skeletal effect on maxilla and mandible was achieved. The retrusion and extrusion of the maxillary incisors as well as the protrusion and intrusion of mandibular incisors were found to be statistically significant in both treatment groups. Soft tissue profile improvement was limited in both treatment groups.

Conclusions: Both appliances corrected Class II discrepancies through dentoalveolar changes; however lower incisor proclination was more prominent with the Forsus FRD. (Eur J Dent 2012;6:302- 310)

Key words

Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS²) - Forsus FRD - functional therapy - late adolescence

• REFERENCES

• 1 Schmuth GPF. Milestones in the development and practical application of functional appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1983;84:48-53.
• 2 Herbst E. Atlas und Grundriss der Zahnarztlichen Orthpadie. Munich: J.F. Lehmann Verlag. 1910.
• 3 Aelbers CMF, Dermaut LR. Orthopadie in der Orthodontie- Ein Literaturüberblick. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 1999;31:65-79.
• 4 Pancherz H. Treatment of class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod 1979;76:423-442.
• 5 Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1982;82:104-113.
• 6 Sabbagh A. The Sabbagh Universal Spring. In the: Papadopoulos MA. Orthodontic treatment of the Class II noncompliant patient. Mosby. 2006:203-16.
• 7 Now even beter to reach Class I. SUS²- Sabbagh Universal Spring. http://www.dentaurum.de/eng/orthodontie_4138_7287.aspx, 14.9.2005
• 8 http://www.dentaurum.de/files/989-543-20.pdf
• 9 Heinig N, Goz G. Clinical application and effects of the Forsus spring. A study of a new Herbst hybrid. J Orofac Orthop 2001;62:436-450.
• 10 El-Sheikh MM, Godfrey K, Manosudprasit M, Viwattanatipa N. Force deflection characteristics of the fatigue-resistant device spring: an in vitro study. World J Orthod 2007;8:30-36.
• 11 Hassel B, Farman A. Skeletal maturation evaluation using cervical vertebrae. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:58-66.
• 12 http://www.dentaurum.de/files/989-539-00.pdf
• 13 Sabbagh A. Classification of the noncompliance appliances used for Class II correction. In the: Papadopoulos MA. Orthodontic treatment of the Class II noncompliant patient. Mosby. 2006:9-34.
• 14 Firouz M, Zernik J, Nanda R. Dental and orthopedic effects of high pull headgear in treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:197-205.
• 15 Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC. Soft tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisor. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;91:385–394.
• 16 Lamparski DG. Skeletal age assessment utilizing cervical vertebrae (dissertation). Pittsburg, PA: The University of Pittsburg. 1972.
• 17 O’ Reilly M, Yanniello GJ. Mandibular growth changes and maturation of cervical vertebrae-a longitudinal cephalometric study. Angle Orthod 1988;58:179-184.
• 18 Weiland FJ, Bantleon HP. Treatment of class II malocclusions with the Jasper Jumper appliance-a preliminary report. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995;108:341-350.
• 19 Karacay S, Akın E, Olmez H, Gurton AU, Sagdıc D. Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring and Jasper Jumper corrections of Class II division 1 maloclusions. Angle Orthod 2006;76:666-672.
• 20 Valant JR, Sinclair PM. Treatment effect of the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;95:138-147.
• 21 Küçükkeleş N, İlhan I, Orgun A. Treatment Efficiency in Skeletal Class II Patients Treated with the Jasper Jumper. Angle Orthod 2007;77:449-56.
• 22 Chen JY, Will LA, Niederman R. Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2002;122:470-476.
• 23 Covell DA, Trammell DW, Boero RP, West R. A cephalometric study of Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with the Jasper Jumper appliance. Angle Orthod 1999;69:311-320.
• 24 Küçükkeleş N, Orgun A. Correction of Class II malocclusions with a Jasper Jumper in growing patients. Eur J Orthod 1995;17:445.
• 25 Nalbantgil D, Arun T, Sayınsu K, Işık F. Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Changes induced by the Jasper Jumper appliance in late adolescence. Angle Orthod 2005;75;426-436.
• 26 Weiland FJ, Droschl H. Treatment of a Class II, Division 1 malocclusion with the Jasper Jumper: a case report. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;109:1-7.
• 27 Lange DW, Kalra V, Broadbent BH, Powers m, Nelson S. Changes in soft tissue profile following treatment with the bionator. Angle Orthod 1995;6:423-430.
• 28 Ruf S, Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes in young adults treated with the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthod 1998;69:239-246.