Orthodontically induced external apical root resorption of mandibular anteriors after use of ForsusTM and AdvansyncTM 2- A CBCT study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.3118Keywords:
AdvanSync™ 2, Forsus™, Orthodontically induced external apical root resorptionAbstract
Background- Class II malocclusion is a common skeletal discrepancy which may be managed through various treatment modalities, including fixed functional appliances like AdvanSyncTM and ForsusTM FRD, widely used for non-compliant patients . However, one of the significant concerns associated with these appliances wasorthodontically induced external apical root resorption (OIEARR).This study aimed to evaluate and compare the degree of orthodontically induced external apical root resorption in skeletal Class II patients treated with Forsus™ and AdvanSync™ 2 fixed functional appliances using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods-The study involved 20 patients with skeletal Class II malocclusions (true mandibular retrusion), divided into two groups of 10 each. CBCT scans were taken before and after 6–12 months of fixed functional treatment with AdvanSync™ 2 (Group I)and Forsus™ (Group II) to assess root resorption and tooth inclination changes. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann–Whitney U test.
Results- Root resorption was observed in all patients, with Forsus™ demonstrating a significantly higher mean root resorption compared to AdvanSync™ 2. The highest values were recorded for mandibular canines, with statistically significant differences between the two groups. Additionally, both appliances caused an increase in mandibular incisor proclination, but Forsus™ resulted in greater inclination changes compared to AdvanSync™ 2.
Conclusion-AdvanSync™ 2 and Forsus™ are both effective in treating skeletal Class II malocclusion by facilitating mandibular advancement. However, the extent of orthodontically induced external apical root resorption (OIEARR) differs significantly between the two appliances, with Forsus™ demonstrating a higher predisposition for root resorption. These findings underscore the importance of careful appliance selection based on patient-specific factors
Downloads
Metrics
References
Kharbanda OP, Sidhu SS, Sundararn KR, Shukla DK. Prevalence of malocclusion and its traits in Delhi children. J Indian OrthodSoc 1995;26(3):98-103.
Clark WJ. The twin block technique. A functional orthopedic appliance system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Jan;93(1):1-18.
Eirew, H. L. (1981). The Bionator. British Journal of Orthodontics, 8(1), 33–36.
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
Vogt W. The Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. J ClinOrthod. 2006; 40: 368-377.
Dischinger BM. Skeletal Class II case presentation: Utilization of the AdvanSync 2 appliance. APOS Trends Orthod 2018;8:168-74
Ritto AK, Ferreira AP. Fixed functional appliances--a classification. FunctOrthod. 2000;17(2):12-32.
Baccetti, T, Stahl, F, McNamara JA., Jr. Dentofacial growth changes in subjects with untreated Class II malocclusion from late puberty through young adulthood. Am J OrthodDentofacOrthop. 2009;135:148–154.
Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V, et al. Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in Class II patients. Angle Orthod 2011;81(4):678–683.
Giuntini V, Vangelisti A, Masucci C, et al. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance vs the Forsus fatigue resistant device in growing class II patients. Angle Orthod 2015;85(5):784–789.
Al-Jewair TS, Preston CB, Moll EM, et al. A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2012;82(5):907–914. DOI: 10.2319/090411-569.1
Cacciatore G, Alvetro L, Defraia E, et al. Active-treatment effects of the Forsus fatigue resistant device during comprehensive class II correction in growing patients. Korean J Orthod2014;44(3):136–142.
Hansen K, Koutsonas TG, Pancherz H. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment on the mandibular incisor segment: a cephalometric and biometric investigation. Am J OrthodDentofacOrthop 1997;112(1):92–103.
Berco M, Rigali PH Jr, Miner RM, DeLuca S, Anderson NK, Will LA. Accuracy and reliability of linear cephalometric measurements from cone-beam computed tomography scans of a dry human skull. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(1):17.e1-18.
Pavlin D, Gluhak-Heinrich J. Effect of mechanical loading on periodontal cells. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2001;12(5):414-424.
Han G, Huang S, Von den Hoff JW, Zeng X, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Root resorption after orthodontic intrusion and extrusion: an intraindividual study. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(6):912-918.
Çoban G, GülAmuk N, Yağcı A, Akgün G, AbboodAbbood IH. Evaluation of external apical root resorption caused by fixed functional treatment of class II malocclusion : Cast splint Herbst appliance vs. Forsus fatigue resistant device. J OrofacOrthop. 2023 Jan;84(1):50-59.
Narendran N, Batra P, Sonar S, Singla A. Effects of Class II treatment with hybrid fixed functional appliances on root length and root volume- a prospective study using CBCT. Int J Sci Res. 2019;8:28–31.
Linjawi AI, Abbassy MA. Dentoskeletal effects of the ForsusTM fatigue resistance device in the treatment of class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J OrthodSci 2018;7:5.
Roopa K, Belludi A, Rekhawat A, Durgekar S, Reddy S. Three-dimensional cone-beam computed technology evaluation of effects of AdvanSync and Forsus fatigue resistant device on mandibular anterior teeth. World J Dent. 2023;14(3):245-253.
Rekhawat A, Durgekar SG, Reddy S. Evaluation of Root Resorption, Tooth Inclination and Changes in Supporting Bone in Class II Malocclusion Patients Treated with Forsus Appliance. Turk J Orthod. 2020 Mar 1;33(1):21-30.
Bakdach WM, Hadad R. Is there any enhanced treatment effect on class II growing patients when Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device is reinforced by either miniplates or miniscrews? A systematic review and meta-analysis. IntOrthod. 2021;19(1):15-24.
Acar A, Canyürek Ü, Kocaaga M, Erverdi N. Continuous vs. discontinuous force application and root resorption. Angle Orthod. 1999;69(2):159–164.
Zymperdikas VF, Koretsi V, Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA. Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):113-126.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
