ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
The Fixed Functional Appliances in Class II Malocclusion: A Clinical Performance Comparison.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Class II malocclusion, which impact 20-25% of the population worldwide, stem from either inadequate development of the mandible or excessive development of the maxilla. Typically seen among young individuals, initiating treatment early can modify growth patterns and enhance results. Treatment Options include growth modification, dental camouflage, and surgery. Fixed functional appliances aid in better treatment outcome without relying on patient compliance. The aim of current study is to evaluate the efficiency of Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device, Powerscope, and Twin Force Bite Corrector in treating class II malocclusion. Material and Methods: A prospective study at Saveetha Dental College (Jan 2022-Jan 2023) examined 60 patients (ages 14-16) with skeletal class II malocclusion. Divided into three groups, participants received treatment with Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device, Powerscope, or Twin Force Bite Corrector. Outcomes were assessed via lateral cephalograms before and after (6-9 months) treatment.A prospective study conducted at Saveetha Dental College (Jan 2022-Jan 2023) examined 60 patients (ages 14-16) with skeletal class II malocclusion. Participants were divided into three groups and treated with either the Twin Force Bite Corrector, Powerscope, or the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. Lateral cephalograms were used to evaluate the outcome both before and after the treatment (6-9 months). Results: Skeletal parameter changes such as SNB, ANB, Go-Gn, Jaraback ratio, and IMPA, were significant across groups (p<0.05), with TFBC showing the most efficacy in ANB (-4.69mm) change. Linear parameters like LAFH and PFH also showed significant changes, particularly in groups I and III. In dental parameters, significant changes were observed in angular measures like L1-SN, L1-NB, and interincisal angles, and linear measures such as L1-NB linear and L6-NB linear. Conclusions: Comparing the favourable outcome of the parameters TFBC is effective among the other treatment but the change in SNA and maxillary length implies a continuous and consistent follow-up and evaluation is required clinically for a favourable outcome.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.