top of page

Effectiveness of miniscrew supported fixed functional appliance (MSFFA)

Class II functional appliances classified according to mode of retention into: 1. Tooth borne: A. Passive tooth borne eg Andreasen, Bionator B. Active tooth borne eg twin block, Herbst. 2. Tissue borne eg Frankel 3. Miniscrew supported fixed functional appliance (MSFFA).

Over the last few years, it was believed that MSFFA results in more skeletal changes and less dental side effects (such as lower incisors proclination).

Orthodontic and Craniofacial journal published a paper in their August 2020 issue titled: “Skeletally Anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device for Correction of Class II Malocclusions-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. The paper was published by a team from India led by Dr Arvind.

This review that included three RCTs and one CCT and involved more than 100 patients in both control and MSFFA accepted the null hypothesis that MSFFA is not superior to traditional Class 2 functional appliance in terms of skeletal changes though MSFFAs are associated with less lower incisors proclination. It is important to remember that this review included papers with high level of heterogeneity so results need to be interpreted with caution.

What do you think?

Link to the paper:

608 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page