Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42238173›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Comparative Evaluation of Twin Block and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in the Management of Class II Malocclusion: A Systematic Review.

Rakesh K Singh, Veera Sawant, Vighanesh Kadam, Wajeeha Mulla, Keval Shroff, Sanpreet S Sachdev

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rakesh K SinghOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, D.Y. Patil Deemed to be University School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, IND.
Veera SawantOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, D.Y. Patil Deemed to be University School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, IND.
Vighanesh KadamOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, D.Y. Patil Deemed to be University School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, IND.
Wajeeha MullaOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, D.Y. Patil Deemed to be University School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, IND.
Keval ShroffOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, D.Y. Patil Deemed to be University School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, IND.
Sanpreet S SachdevOral Pathology and Microbiology, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Class II malocclusion due to mandibular retrusion is commonly managed with functional appliances, yet the comparative effectiveness of removable and fixed modalities remains uncertain. This systematic review evaluated the skeletal, dentoalveolar, soft-tissue, and airway effects of the Twin Block (TB) appliance and the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD) in the correction of Class II malocclusion. Electronic searching and manual screening identified nine eligible comparative clinical studies for qualitative synthesis. The included studies comprised predominantly nonrandomized designs and together represented 377 participants, with 188 treated using FFRD and 189 using TB. Across the included evidence, both appliances were effective in correcting Class II malocclusion and improving overjet, overbite, and molar relationships. However, the pattern of correction differed between the appliances. TB consistently demonstrated a greater skeletal contribution, with more favorable mandibular advancement, increased mandibular length, and greater improvement in sagittal jaw relationship. In contrast, FFRD treatment relied more on dentoalveolar compensation, particularly proclination of the mandibular incisors. Soft-tissue outcomes, though limited, showed esthetic improvement with both appliances. Airway-related findings were reported in only a few studies and suggested a possible advantage of TB in improving pharyngeal dimensions, although results were not fully consistent across studies. Overall, the available evidence suggests that while both appliances are clinically effective, TB provides a stronger skeletal effect, whereas FFRD achieves correction predominantly through dental adaptation. Further well-designed prospective trials are required to strengthen the comparative evidence base.

Indexed as

class ii malocclusionforsus appliancefunctional appliancesmandibular advancementtwin block

Identifiers

PMID42238173
PMCPMC13227463

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.