Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://earsiv.odu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11489/1602
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBuyuk, Suleyman Kutalmis-
dc.contributor.authorCelikoglu, Mevlut-
dc.contributor.authorEkizer, Abdullah-
dc.contributor.authorUnal, Tuba-
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-16T05:41:26Z-
dc.date.available2022-08-16T05:41:26Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.urihttp://doi.org/10.2319/040315-225.1-
dc.identifier.urihttps://meridian.allenpress.com/angle-orthodontist/article/86/2/306/181587/Treatment-effects-of-skeletally-anchored-Forsus-
dc.identifier.urihttp://earsiv.odu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11489/1602-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the Forsus FRD appliance with miniplate anchorage inserted in the mandibular symphyses and to compare the findings with a well-matched control group treated with a Herbst appliance for the correction of a skeletal Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 32 Class II subjects divided into two groups. Group I consisted of 16 patients (10 females and 6 males; mean age, 13.20 +/- 1.33 years) treated using the Forsus FRD EZ appliance with miniplate anchorage inserted in the mandibular symphyses. Group II consisted of 16 patients (9 females and 7 males; mean age, 13.56 +/- 1.27 years) treated using the Herbst appliance. Seventeen linear and 10 angular measurements were performed to evaluate and compare the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of the appliances using paired and Student's t-tests. Results: Both appliances were effective in correcting skeletal class II malocclusion and showed similar skeletal and soft tissue changes. The maxillary incisor was statistically significantly more retruded in the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD group (P < .01). The mandibular incisor was retruded in the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD group (-4.09 degrees +/- 5.12 degrees), while it was protruded in the Herbst group (7.50 degrees +/- 3.98 degrees) (P < .001). Conclusion: Although both appliances were successful in correcting the skeletal Class II malocclusion, the skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ appliance did so without protruding the mandibular incisors.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherE H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC, 1615 BEACON ST, NEWTON N, MA 02468-1507 USAen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.2319/040315-225.1en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectCLASS-II CORRECTION; MAXILLARY MOLAR DISTALIZATION; FATIGUE RESISTANT DEVICE; DIVISION-1 MALOCCLUSIONS; JASPER-JUMPER; MECHANISM; EFFICIENCYen_US
dc.subjectSkeletal anchorage; Forsus FRD EZ; Herbst; Class II malocclusionen_US
dc.titleTreatment effects of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ and Herbst appliances: A retrospective clinical studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalANGLE ORTHODONTISTen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOrdu Üniversitesien_US
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0003-3269-8610en_US
dc.identifier.volume86en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage306en_US
dc.identifier.endpage314en_US
Appears in Collections:Ortodonti

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.