Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2025
Force System with Vertical V-Bends: A 3D In Vitro Assessment of Elastic and Rigid Rectangular Archwires
Published on: July 24, 2018
Influence of the force magnitude of fixed functional appliances for class II subdivision 1 treatment-a cephalometric
Hisham Sabbagh1, Aladin Sabbagh2, Mila Janjic Rankovic3
1Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Goethestr. 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. hisham.sabbagh@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Purpose:
To investigate the skeletal and dental effects of a hybrid fixed functional appliance (FFA) used with different force magnitudes for class II subdivision 1 treatment.
Methods:
Treatment records from 70 patients were evaluated: 35 patients were treated with a FFA with standard activation (SUS group) and 35 with a FFA with an additional force-generating spring (TSUS group). Two control groups were matched from the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation (AAOF) Craniofacial Growth Legacy Collection for comparison with the two treatment groups to determine skeletal and dental treatment effects. The cephalometric parameters at T0 (before treatment) and T1 (before debonding) were assessed using the Munich standard cephalometric analysis and by the sagittal occlusal analysis (SO) according to Pancherz. Data were analyzed statistically using SPSS.
Results:
No statistically significant difference for any cephalometric parameter was observed between the SUS and TSUS groups concerning the measurements at T0 and T1. Both treatment groups exhibited an effective class II therapy mainly due to a significant reduction in SNA, and ANB and an increase in SNB. In contrast to the control group, as the result of treatment a skeletal class I was achieved.
Conclusion:
No significant statistical differences were observed between the patient group treated with the FFA with standard activation (SUS) and those treated with an additional spring (TSUS) regarding the cephalometric parameters investigated. Both variants were equally effective in treating class II division 1 malocclusions.
