Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey.
School of Orthodontics, Brooks Rehabilitation College of Healthcare Sciences, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Fla.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Apr;157(4):474-480. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.05.013.
The objective of this research was to compare the 2 treatment protocols including a functional mandibular advancer (FMA; Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany) followed by multibracket appliances (MBAs) vs a Forsus device (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) in combination with MBA concerning treatment outcomes and posttreatment stability.
This study was conducted using lateral cephalograms of patients who were treated with MBA, which was used either after an FMA or concurrently with a Forsus device, and of patients who had untreated Class II malocclusion (control group). Each group consisted of 19 subjects in cervical stage 2 or cervical stage 3 stages according to the cervical vertebral maturation index. Cephalograms were taken for the treated groups at T1 (pretreatment), T2 (completion of the MBA treatment), and T3 (at least 2 years after T2).
Significant intergroup differences at the T1-T2 period were observed in favor of the FMA concerning mandibular advancement, intermaxillary relationship, and mandibular elongation. With Forsus treatment, restrained maxillary growth and a slightly improved intermaxillary relationship rebounded after treatment (P <0.05). At the end of treatment, mandibular incisor protrusion and occlusal plane rotation were greater in the Forsus group than in the FMA group (P <0.05), and maxillary incisor retroclination was significant in the Forsus group. During the posttreatment period, although no significant changes were present in the incisors' inclination, relapses of the T1-T2 improvements in overjet and overbite and the recidive of the occlusal plane rotation were significantly higher in the Forsus group.
Treatment protocol including an FMA was found to be more effective with mandibular skeletal effects and was more stable with a lesser degree of relapse in overjet and overbite than the Forsus protocol.
本研究的目的是比较两种治疗方案,包括使用功能性下颌前伸矫治器(FMA;德国 Forestadent,Pforzheim),然后使用多曲方丝弓矫治器(MBAs)与 Forsus 装置(3M Unitek,Monrovia,加利福尼亚)联合使用 MBAs,比较治疗结果和治疗后稳定性。
本研究使用 MBAs 治疗的患者的侧位头颅侧位片进行,MBAs 治疗后使用 FMA 或与 Forsus 装置同时使用,以及未经治疗的 II 类错(对照组)。每组根据颈椎成熟度指数分为颈椎 2 期或颈椎 3 期 19 例。对治疗组在 T1(治疗前)、T2(MBAs 治疗完成)和 T3(T2 后至少 2 年)拍摄头颅侧位片。
T1-T2 期间,FMA 组在下颌前伸、上下颌关系和下颌伸长方面具有显著的组间差异。Forsus 治疗后,上颌生长受限和稍微改善的上下颌关系反弹(P<0.05)。治疗结束时,Forsus 组下颌切牙前突和咬合平面旋转大于 FMA 组(P<0.05),上颌切牙后倾明显。在治疗后期间,尽管切牙倾斜度没有明显变化,但 Forsus 组的覆盖和覆牙合的 T1-T2 改善的复发和咬合平面旋转的复发明显更高。
与 Forsus 方案相比,包含 FMA 的治疗方案在颌骨骨骼效果方面更有效,在覆盖和覆牙合的复发程度较低的情况下更稳定。