Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 14, 2025

Use of a Foot-Induced Digitally Controlled Resistance Device for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation in Patients with Foot Paresis
Published on: July 7, 2023
Treatment efficiency of activator and skeletal anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device appliances
Sinem Ince-Bingol1, Burcak Kaya2, Burak Bayram3
1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey. hsinemince@gmail.com.
Objectives:
The aim of the study was to investigate the treatment efficiency of miniplate anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (MAF) as compared with the activator appliance.
Materials And Methods:
Mandibular retrognathia was treated with two methods, the MAF group (8 girls, 11 boys, mean age 13.03 ± 0.69 years) and the activator group (7 girls, 12 boys, mean age 12.68 ± 0.73 years). An untreated control group (9 girls, 10 boys, mean age 12.95 ± 0.73 years) was constructed to eliminate growth-related changes through the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation Legacy Collection. Data of 114 lateral cephalograms were analyzed.
Results:
The inhibition of the maxillary growth was greater in the MAF group, whereas forward displacement of the mandible was higher in the activator group (P < 0.05). Sagittal maxillomandibular relation was improved similarly in both treatment groups (P < 0.05). Mandibular length was increased in both treatment groups with the highest increase in the activator group (P < 0.05). Retroclination of the incisors was observed in the MAF group (P < 0.05). The upper lip was retruded in the MAF group and lower lip was protruded in the activator group (P < 0.05).
Conclusion:
The activator created greater mandibular changes, whereas the MAF provides somewhat smaller mandibular changes due to the restriction caused by retroclined maxillary incisors.
Clinical Relevance:
Although both MAF and activator treatments caused favorable maxillomandibular changes, new treatment alternatives that reduce dentoalveolar side effects and eliminate patient cooperation are still required to achieve skeletal correction in class II malocclusion treatment in growing patients.
More Related Videos
08:40Quantifying Arms and Legs Contributions during Repetitive Electrically-Assisted Sit-To-Stand Exercise in Paraplegics: A Pilot Study
Published on: November 11, 2022
03:55Author Spotlight: Enhancing Grasping Abilities for Hemiplegic Patients with Flexible Robotic Limbs
Published on: October 27, 2023