Class II non-extraction patients treated with the forsus fatigue resistant device versus intermaxillary elastics

Objective: To evaluate the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FRD) as a compliance-free alternative to Class II elastics. Materials and Methods: A sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction FRD patients (12.6 years of age) were matched with a sample of 34 (14 female, 20 male) consecutively treated nonextraction Class II elastics patients (12.2 years of age) based on four pretreatment variables (ANB, L1-GoMe, SN-GoMe, and treatment duration). Pretreatment and post-treatment cephalometric radiographs were traced and analyzed using the pitchfork analysis and a vertical cephalometric analysis. t-Tests were used to evaluate group differences. Group differences were evaluated using t-tests. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in the treatment changes between the groups. There was a general trend for mesial movement of the maxilla, mandible, and dentition during treatment for both groups. The mandibular skeletal advancement and dental movements were greater than those in the maxilla, which accounted for the Class II correction. Lower incisor proclination was evident in both groups. Vertically, the maxillary and mandibular molars erupted during treatment in both groups, while lower incisors proclined. With the exception of lower molar mesial movements and total molar correction, which were significantly (P <.05) greater in the Forsus group, there were no statistically significant group differences in the treatment changes. Conclusions: The Forsus FRD is an acceptable substitute for Class II elastics for noncompliant patients.