الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 193 |  |  |
| | | from | 193 | | |
Abstract
This study was made to evaluate the skeletal, dentoalveolar, soft tissue, airway and TMJ changes of two different force application systems which are the pulling force (CS 2000® appliance/ CS appliance) and the pushing force (Reversed Forsus fatigue-resistant device/ RF appliance). A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted to address the aim of the study. Thirty three growing skeletal Class III patients (8-11 years) were recruited upon a lateral cephalometric x-ray. Subjects complying with the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned using a computer-generated list to one of the three groups. group I: Eleven patients treated with CS2000 appliance, group II: Eleven patients treated with reversed Forsus Fatigue Resistant device and group III: control group of Eleven untreated patients with a ratio of 1:1:1 allocation. A CBCT was made before installing the appliances. After gaining a 2 mm positive overjet or a 6 months period, alginate impressions will be poured and dental casts will be made. Photographs and CBCTs were also performed to record dentofacial effects of the used appliances.
The CS 2000 spring and the reversed Forsus Fatigue Resistance device both corrected Class III by mainly forward maxillary advancement in an average of 5 months. Both treatment groups showed similar significant changes in the skeletal, dental and soft tissue measurements in the direction of improving the skeletal Class III discrepancy, which can be in close resemblance to effects seen with orthopedic appliances. For the joint spaces, the anterior joint space increased more in RF group than CS group. As for the posterior joint space, it decreased in both treatment groups more in RF group than in CS group. Regarding the superior joint space, it decreased in the RF group indicating that the condyle moved upwards, and increased in CS indicating downwards condylar movement. Lastly, the medial joint space increased in both treatment groups. Moreover, there was an increase in the upper airway in the RF group more than that of the CS, vice versa was seen with the lower airway where the increase was more in CS group than RF group.