Comparative Evaluation of Skeletal, Dental, Soft Tissue and Glenoid fossa Changes Induced by Fixed Functional (Rigid & Hybrid) and Myofunctional Appliances in Skeletal Class II patients

Authors

  • Rahul Paul
  • Deepti Yadav
  • Vandana Gulia
  • Ish Kumar Sharma
  • Uchit Gupta
  • Prakher Saini
  • Ratika Sawhney

Keywords:

Humans, Glenoid Cavity, Sample Size, Goals, Overbite, Malocclusion, Angle Class II

Abstract

Functional appliances have been used for over a century to correct Class II malocclusion, producing both dental and skeletal effects to reduce overjet in growing patients. This study aimed to evaluate and compare skeletal, dental, soft tissue, and glenoid fossa changes induced by fixed functional (Powerscope and Forsus Fatigue Resistant) and myofunctional appliances in 60 subjects divided into three groups. Pre-treatment (T0) and 6-month post-treatment (T1) lateral cephalograms were manually traced and analyzed. Results indicated statistically significant improvements with all appliances, with Powerscope showing prominent dentoalveolar changes (e.g., incisal inclination, U6-PP), myofunctional appliances demonstrating superior skeletal effects (e.g., Ar-Go-Me angle), and Forsus Fatigue Resistant contributing most to condylar remodeling (AE-SN and AE-CP angles). The study concludes that while all three appliances effectively correct Class II malocclusion, their efficacy varies: As for dentoalveolar correction, Powerscope appliance shows the maximum results, myofunctional appliances works best for skeletal correction, and Forsus for condylar remodelling along with skeletal correction, suggesting appliance selection should align with specific treatment objectives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. An improved version of the cervical vertebral maturation (CVM) method for the assessment of mandibular growth. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(4):316-23.

McNamara JA, Brudon WL. Orthodontic and orthopedic treatment in the mixed dentition. Needham Press; 2001.

O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, et al. Effectiveness of early orthodontic treatment with the Twin-block appliance: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Part 1: Dental and skeletal effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(3):234-43.

Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment: A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1997;82(2):104-13.

Voudouris JC, Woodside DG, Altuna G, et al. Condyle-fossa modifications and muscle interactions during Herbst treatment, Part 1: New technological methods. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(6):604-13.

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. 2020;42(3):287-97.

Hirzel A, et al. Activator therapy in the prepubertal period: a 1-year follow-up study. Am J Orthod. 1974;65(5):491-507.

Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(2):104-113.

Vogt W. The Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: design, mechanics, and clinical application. J Clin Orthod. 2006;40(6):368-376.

Arora V, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing PowerScope and Forsus appliances in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 2017;39(5):512-520.

American Association of Orthodontists (AAO). Evidence-based guidelines for orthodontic treatment timing. AAO White Paper. 2023.

Basciftci FA, et al. Effects of rigid fixed functional appliances on dental and skeletal changes in Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121(5):454-462.

McNamara JA, et al. Skeletal and dental changes following functional appliance therapy in Class II malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 1990;12(3):257-272.

Jones G, et al. Hybrid fixed functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a cephalometric evaluation. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(4):678-685.

Paul R, Gupta M, Golchha V, Yadav D, Sharma I, Sharma SK. PowerScope as a Class II corrector in a noncompliant patient – A case report. J Contemp Orthod. 2020;4(2):12-15.

Paul R, Yadav D, Sharma IK, Gulia V, Kesiezie T, Sairal A. To evaluate and correlate nasolabial angle, mentolabial sulcus angle and throat angle using cephalometric and photographic measurement. Afr J Bio Sci. 2024;6(9):3599-3608. doi:10.33472/AFJBS.6.9.2024.3599-3608.

Paul R, Yadav D, Sharma IK, Gulia V, Kesiezie T, Sairal A. To evaluate and correlate nasolabial angle, mentolabial sulcus angle and throat angle using cephalometric and photographic measurement. Iran J Orthod. 2024 Dec;19(2):e1150. doi:10.32592/ijorth.19.2.1150.

De Vincenzo JP. Changes in mandibular length during and after orthopedic correction of Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;99(5):441-453.

American Association of Orthodontists (AAO). Importance of individualized assessments in orthodontic treatment timing. 2023.

Kaur GJ, et al. Comparison of Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device and PowerScope in Class II Division 1 malocclusion. J Clin Orthod. 2022;56(4):223-230.

Hassel B, et al. Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) method for evaluating skeletal maturation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107(1):58-66.

Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research? Indian J Psychol Med. 2013;35(2):121-126. doi:10.4103/0253-7176.116232.

McNamara JA Jr, Bookstein FL, Shaughnessy TG. Skeletal and dental changes following functional regulator therapy on Class II patients. Am J Orthod. 1985;88(2):91-110. [DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(85)90220-5]

Ruf S, Pancherz H. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115(6):607-618. [DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70281-0]

Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125(6):657-667. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.026]

Vogt W. The Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. J Clin Orthod. 2006;40(6):368-377.

Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(2):104-113. [DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90489-4]

Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. Postpubertal assessment of treatment timing for maxillary expansion and protraction therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(5):555-568. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.036]

Downloads

Published

2025-05-21

How to Cite

1.
Paul R, Yadav D, Gulia V, Sharma IK, Gupta U, Saini P, Sawhney R. Comparative Evaluation of Skeletal, Dental, Soft Tissue and Glenoid fossa Changes Induced by Fixed Functional (Rigid & Hybrid) and Myofunctional Appliances in Skeletal Class II patients. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2025May21 [cited 2025Sep.11];14(22S):1070-82. Available from: https://www.jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/6216

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 22S (2025): Journal of Neonatal Surgery

Section

Original Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • 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.