Comparative Evaluation of Discomfort, Expectations and Functional Experiences during Treatment of Class II Malocclusion with Forsus Fixed Functional Appliance and Sharma’s Class II Corrector - A Questionnaire Based Survey

BACKGROUND The Forsus fatigue resistant device (FFRD) appliance is known to correct Class II malocclusion. The disadvantage of it are labial flaring of lower incisors, distalisation and extrusion of maxillary molars, difficulty in procuring the appliances in remote areas and cost. No research has documented the comparison of patient’s experience with FFRD and Sharma’s Class II corrector appliance. Therefore, a questionnaire survey was conducted. METHODS 40 patients having Class II Division 1 malocclusion were included and were divided into two groups- FFRD appliance (group 1, 20 patients) and Sharma’s Class II corrector (group 2, 20 patients). A questionnaire was framed that consisted of 15 questions. Descriptive and analytical statistics was done using SPSS software. The difference in proportions was calculated by chi-square test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS 30 % of cases in group 2 indicated that the Sharma’s Class II corrector looks good (Q1) as compared to 15 % in group 1. (P = 0.630) 5 % indicated it was not aesthetic in group 2 as compared to 10 % in group 1. 30 % of cases in group 1 indicated that there were problems associated with speech as compared to 0 % in group 2. (P < 0.05). Values were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Sharma’s Class II corrector has similar patient acceptance as compared to FFRD appliance with the additional benefit of cost effectiveness. Hence, this can be considered as a better option in treating Class II malocclusion with fixed therapy. KEY WORDS FFRD, Fixed Function Appliance, Economic Orthodontics, Growth Modification, Sharma’s Class II Corrector