ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Twin Block and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in the Management of Class II Malocclusion: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.