Orthodontic cyber journal year 2001 issue 6

June, 2001

Fixed Functional Appliances A Classification (Updated)

En Espaol

A Korrodi Ritto D.D.S., Ph.D.

Functional orthopedic treatment seeks to correct malocclusions and harmonize the

shape of the dental arch and oro-facial functions.

Removable functional appliances are normally very large in size, have unstable
fixation, cause discomfort, lack tactile sensibility, exert pressure on the mucous
(encouraging gingivitis), reduce space for the tongue, cause difficulties in
deglutition and speech and very often affect aesthetic appearance. The alteration in
the mandibular posture creates added difficulties. These adverse effects make the
adaptation and acceptance of these appliances more difficult (Oliver and
Knappman, 1985; Ngan et al., 1989). [1,2]

Fixed functional appliances first appeared in 1900 when Emil Herbst [3] (Herbst E.,
1910) presented his system at the Berlin International Dental Congress. Since then
and up to the seventies, very little was published on this appliance. It was at that
time that Hans Pancherz [4] (Pancherz H., 1979) brought the subject back into
discussion with the publication of several articles on the Herbst.

It was only in the eighties that several systems derived from Herbsts work started
to appear.

A number of fixed appliances have gained popularity in recent years to help achieve
better results in non-compliant patients.

Fixed functional appliances are normally known as "non-compliance Class II

correctors" giving a false idea about the co-operation necessary during treatment.
In reality, when we compare them to removable appliances, we can clearly
recognize fixed appliances as non-compliance devices. However, for treatment to be
successful, good co-operation is always necessary, especially if skeletal
modifications instead of dentoalveolar compensation are desired.

The aim of this article is to update the classification of fixed functional appliances,
published in 2000 in "The Functional Orthodontist". Their clinical applications will be
listed and a description of how they work will be given. The advantages that some
have over others will also be discussed.

Classification
Fixed functional systems have some advantages over removable systems. They are
designed to be used 24 hours a day, which means that there is a continuous
stimulus for mandibular growth.

They are smaller in size permitting better adaptation to functions such as a

mastication, swallowing, speech and breathing.

Fixed functional appliances are usually described as non-compliance Class II

devices, which are able to treat Class II malocclusions successfully, while reducing
the need for patient co-operation and overall treatment time. It is possible to treat
this type of malocclusion with minimal effort.

Just as the name implies, what distinguishes them from removable appliances is
that it is impossible for the patient to remove them. What we have therefore, is an
appliance that allows greater control by the orthodontist.

These appliances are fixed on the upper and lower arches. Since the application of
force is transmitted directly to the teeth through a support system, the main
disadvantage that may be encountered is dental movement that takes place during
treatment which may not be the most suitable for the type of malocclusion in
question. In an attempt to avoid this unwanted dental movement and as a way of
finding an appliance that allows easy adaptation by the patient, various fixed
functional appliances have appeared in recent years.

Fixed functional appliances can be classified as either flexible (Flexible Fixed

Functional Appliance FFFA) or rigid (Rigid Fixed Functional Appliance RFFA).

Flexible Fixed Functional Appliances

Flexible fixed functional appliances (FFFA) can be described as an inter-maxillary

torsion coils, or fixed springs. Elasticity and flexibility are the main characteristics of
flexible appliances. They allow great freedom of movement of the mandible. Lateral
movements can be carried out with ease. The major drawbacks with these
appliances are the propensity with which fractures can occur both in the appliance
itself (mainly in areas that have more acute angles) and in the support system
(mainly in the lower arch). If on one hand flexibility is an advantage, on the other
hand it does tend to produce fatigue in the springs. Another drawback is the
tendency of the patient to chew on the appliance, possibly contributing to breakage
or damage. While it is not possible for the patient to completely open his mouth,
depending on the way the system is fixed onto the lower arch, good opening can be
achieved.

It is important to tell patients to avoid opening their mouths too widely because this
could result in breakage. Also, they are not very aesthetic appliances. When the
curvature of the spring is accentuated, some protuberances can appear in the
cheeks.

Several appliances have come on to the market since the eighties featuring
variations on the covering and type of springs, method of fixation and replaceability
of fractured components. The covering used on the springs makes the appliance
more comfortable and hygienic as food does not accumulate inside the spring. A
disadvantage is that the covering can degrade quite quickly, especially if the
patient bites on the appliance. The ability to replace components is important, as
fractures are an unavoidable reality. These appliances are expensive, therefore, a
system that allows the replacement of some of its components can reduce the cost
of treatment. This leads to another disadvantage: the inventory of material that
must be kept. Almost all are sold in kits of various sizes which contain components
for both the left and right side. It is not always possible to treat a patient with only
one size making it necessary to replace it with a larger size. Once again, this
increases costs.

FFFAs can be used in the treatment of Class I, II division 1 and 2 and III
malocclusions. The intention when they first appeared was for the treatment of
Class II, both in malocclusions characterized by a mandibular deficiency as well as
in cases where a dental problem predominated. Later on, their application extended
to Class I problems especially when treatment including extraction was foreseen.
The appliance was used as an anchorage reinforcement or even for molar
distalization. The appliance is also used in a reverse type for treatment of Class III
malocclusions, as well as in cases of midline discrepancy.

The type of the force exercised by FFFAs is continuous and elastic in nature. The
amount of force is variable in accordance with the skeletal pattern of the patient,
the type of movement desired and the size of the cusps. Normally, in brachyfacial
cases, due to their strong musculature, it is necessary to use more force (greater
activation) than in dolicofacial cases. The height of the dental cusps is a factor to
bear in mind when treating with FFFAs. If the patient has high cusps with good
intercuspation, it will be necessary to exert greater activation on the spring. If the
large size of the cusps is linked to a brachyfacial skeletal pattern with strong
musculature, we can predict a difficult clinical scenario and the appliance will be
prone to fracture.

If an advance of the mandible is required as when treating a retromandibular case,

the force exerted has to be greater than that used when only dental movement is
desired to distalize the upper molar and procline the lower incisors. If the goal of the
treatment is to achieve dentoalveolar movements, the appliance should be
activated minimally by placing a slight bow in the force module. To maximize the
dentoalveolar movements in the upper arch and minimize any loss of anchorage in
the lower, the upper archwire is not tied back.

FFFA produces a "headgear" effect on the maxillary dentition due to the intrusive
force applied to the maxillary posterior segments and produces an anterior intrusive
force on the lower dentition. It can be used to obtain maximum anchorage, holding
upper molars back as the upper incisors are retracted.

Due to the intrusive force on the upper molars, a posterior open bite is common as
well as posterior expansion due to the deflected force module. Another unwanted
common movement is the tendency for the lower molar to rotate mesiobuccally,
causing a mild posterior crossbite especially when the second molars have not been
banded. Some buccal expansion in the upper and lower arches is to be expected,
and placing bands on the second molars will aid final alignment. Placing a
transpalatal or lingual arch during the force activation stage will help control
unwanted buccal expansion of both arches. Loss of occlusion adds to instability,
especially in the transverse dimension.

The most unwanted dental movement is proclination of lower incisors. To avoid this
effect, good anchorage preparation should be carried out. However, in a
brachyfacial pattern with strong musculature this movement would be expected. To
increase anchorage to avoid unwanted dental movements, various additional
systems can be used, such as a transpalatal bar, lingual arches or lower incisor
brackets with lingual torque.

It is advantageous to start the treatment in adolescent patients when the majority

of permanent teeth have erupted and 12-year molars can be banded. FFFAs are not
recommended in mixed dentition, especially late mixed dentition to avoid unwanted
dental movements.

Proper anchorage preparation is critical to achieving successful results. It is

necessary to align and level arches before placing the final wire and activating the
force module. A .017" x .025" or .018" x .025 stainless steel archwire should be
placed before inserting the FFFA. By fully engaging the brackets in both arches,
especially the lower, anchorage is maintained during the activation of the force
module, preventing unwanted mesial movement of the lower incisors and distal
movement of the uppers. When proclining the lower incisors is desired as in in Class
II division 2 it may be advantageous to use a .016" x .022" stainless steel archwire
as a final wire.

All FFFAs allow the patient to close in centric relation.

When the patient closes in centric relation, the contour of the bow should be
significantly increased. By slightly overactivating the appliance in centric relation,
the patient will automatically position the mandible forward. This is a natural
response to decrease the force module and alleviate discomfort. The upper archwire
should be cinched to increase anchorage and minimize dentoalveolar movements.

Despite the clinical references available in published work about skeletal effects
produced by a bite-jumping mechanism with a FFFA, no current scientific research
would be found. Very few articles were published and these only report clinical
cases. This is in contract to the data available for the RFFA. [14-23]

Found in this group were:

1. The Jasper Jumper [16,17] (Jaspar J., 1987) (American Orthodontics, 1714
Cambridge Avenue Sheboygan, WI 53082-1048, USA).

This was the first FFFA to appear (Fig 1).

Figure 1.
 It is made up of a covered spring and is marketed in a kit of different sizes
with both left and right sides. It is accompanied by a quite thorough
instruction manual. It is also an appliance which is more comfortable for the
patient because of its covering. Potential disadvantages are: the large
inventory that must be kept, the coating material may degrade and fractures
can occur with some frequency.

The majority of articles published on FFFAs are about the Jasper Jumper.
However, they are few in number, are comprised of mainly clinical cases, and
rarely refer to the skeletal and dental changes seen in treatment groups or
comparative studies.

2. The Amoric Torsion Coils [23] (Amoric M., 1994)

This appliance is made up of two springs, one of which slides inside the other
(Fig.2). They are intermaxillary springs without covering and have a simplified
application system of rings on the ends. These rings are fixed to the upper
and lower arches with double ligatures.

Figure 2.
 They are marketed in one size only and are bilateral. A large stock of material
is therefore, not necessary. The force exerted by the appliance is variable in
accordance with the fixing points on the arch.

3. The Adjustable Bite Corrector [14] (Richard P. West, 1995) (Orthoplus,

Inc., 1275 Fourth St., Suite 381, Santa Rosa, CA 95404)

This is an appliance which is assembled by the orthodontist as it is composed

of various pieces caps, closed coil springs, nickel titanium wire (Fig 3).

Figure 3.

It can be used on either side of the mouth with a simple 180 rotation of the
lower end cap to change its orientation. This reduces the inventory by as
much as one half. In the center lumen of the spring we find a nickel titanium
wire which is responsible for the "push" force generated. Repairs and
replacements are rapid and easily carried out with this kit. The cost of repair
is minor.

4. The Scandee Tubular Jumper (Saga Dental AS, 2201 Kongsvinger,

Norway).
 This is a coated intermaxillary torsion spring sold in a kit which includes the
spring, the covering, the connectors, the ballpins and the glue (Fig 4). There
is no distinction between left and right.

Figure 4.

The covering can be of different colors making it more attractive for patients.
The orthodontist constructs the appliance, cutting the spring to the length
seen fit. When a fracture occurs, it is only necessary to replace individual
components. It has the drawback of being thick after the covering is applied.

5. The Klapper Super Spring [15] (Lewis Klapper, 1999) (Trademark of

Orthodesign, 744 Falls Circle, Lake Forest, IL 60045).

This is a flexible spring element which is attached between the maxillary

molar and the mandibular canine (Fig.5). The length of the element causes it
to rest in the vestibule when activated. This facilitates hygiene and avoids
oclusal surfaces.

Figure 5.
 The ends (fixing points) are different:

The open helical loop of the spring is twisted like a J-hook onto the
mandibular archwire. On the maxillary end it is attached to the standard
headgear tube (Super Spring I) or to a special oval tube and secured with a
stainless steel ligature (Super Spring II). This new version prevents any lateral
movement of the spring in the vestibule.

Only two prefabricated sizes are available (with left and right versions of
each). The length of the spring can be increased or decreased by simply
bending the attachment wires.

The horizontal configuration of the attachment wire at the maxillary molar

tube permits distalization with good radicular control.

6. The Bite Fixer (Ormco 1717 West Collins Avenue, Orange, CA 92867)

This is a new intermaxillary spring coil. The spring is attached and crimped to
the end fitting to prevent breakage between the spring and the end fitting.
Polyurethane tubing is inside the spring to prevent it from becoming a food
trap (Fig 6).

Figure 6.
 The Bite Fixer is supplied in a kit with various sizes for both left and right.

7. The Churro Jumper [21] (Castaon R. et al., 1998)

This is an inexpensive alternative force system for the anteroposterior

correction of Class II and Class III malocclusions (Fig 7).

Figure 7.

The mesial and distal end of the jumper are circles. The distal circle is
attached to the maxillary molars by a pin and the mesial end is placed over
the mandibular archwire against the canine bracket.

So far, this is the only flexible functional appliance which can be made up by
the orthodontist in his lab. The costs are reduced and the time spent is
minimal.

Rigid Fixed functional appliances RFFA

These appliances have two distinct differences in relation to FFFAs:

RFFAs do not easily fracture but neither do they have elasticity or flexibility.
After fitting and activation they do not allow the patient to close in centric
relation. This means that the mandible is in a forward position 24 hours a day
creating greater stimulus for mandibular growth than with FFFAs.

Their appearance dates from the beginning of the century and their main indication
is for the treatment of Classes II malocclusions. Basically, correction consists of
advancing the mandible to a forced anterior position to stimulate growth and
harmonize skeletal defects. The majority of these appliances do not adapt to the
treatment of Class III cases.

The working of RFFAs is based on a telescopic mechanism which encourages

forward repositioning of the lower jaw as the patient closes into occlusion.
Numerous published articles can be found that describe their method of application,
function and expected results over the short and long term. The skeletal effects
produced with this type of appliance are greater than with FFFAs and are well
described. [24-39]

Only at the end of the eighties did different designs for RFFAs appear. Alternatives
were also developed for fixation which sought to allow greater freedom of
mandibular movement and also to avoid unwanted dental movement, especially
that related to intrusion and vestibular inclination of the lower incisors.

Variations on the Herbst appliance and similar systems, utilizing ball attachments
have appeared on the market in an attempt to:

improve patient comfort and acceptance

cause fewer clinical problems compared to screw or pin attachments

reduce the frequency of emergency appointments

allow good lateral mandibular movements

allow easy application in splints for correction in mixed dentition

To ensure a perfect fit into the ball attachments, great accuracy is required when
welding attachments. Nor is it possible to have lower brackets or fixed appliance at
the same time, unless other systems are resorted to such as a cantilever or mini-
tubes which require greater laboratory time.

1. The Herbst Appliance [3,4] (Herbst E., 1910; Pancherz H., 1979)
(Dentaurum, Inc, 10 Pheasant Run, Newtown, PA 18940).

The Herbst appliance was first described by Emil Herbst in 1905 at the Berlin
Dental Congress. After that very little was written on this appliance until the
end of the seventies when Hans Pancherz brought it back into discussion with
the publication of a series of articles. [4, 38, 39]
The Herbst appliance consists of two tubes, two plungers, axles and screws.
The original device is a banded Herbst design. The Herbst appliance has
undergone some changes in its original design but since the seventies has
maintained its general shape with only a few modifications taking place with
regard to methods of application (Type I, II and IV).

Type I is characterized by a fixing system to the crowns or bands through the

use of screws. This is the most common form. It is necessary to weld the
axles to the bands or crowns and then fix the tubes and plungers with the
screws (Fig 8).

Figure 8.

Type II has a fixing system that fits directly onto the archwires through the
use of screws. This method of application has the disadvantage of causing
constant fractures in the archwires. The lack of flexibility together with the
difficulty in lateral movements and the stress placed on the archwires
through activation causes fractures, especially in the lower arch (Fig 9).

Figure 9.

Type IV has a fixation system with a ball attachment, which allows greater
flexibility and freedom of mandibular movement. A disadvantage in relation
to other similar appliances is the fact that it needs brakes to stabilize the
joint. The brakes are small and sometime difficult to fit. When a fracture
occurs or a brake is lost, the appliance comes loose (Fig 10).

Figure 10.
 Evolution:

The first articles published describe a banded Herbst design that involved the
fitting of bands on the upper molars and first premolars with the bands
connected by a lingual wire. In the mandible, bands were placed on the lower
first premolars, and connected by a lower lingual arch. Later on, the banded
version of the appliance was modified to incorporate additional anchorage
units:

o Bands were placed on all first premolars and all first molars and both
buccal and lingual wires connected the premolars and molar bands.
o The use of stainless steel crowns instead of bands has been advocated.

o The ball attachment appeared as an alternative to screws.

2. The Cantilevered Bite Jumper (Ormco 1717 West Collins Avenue, Orange,
CA 92867)

More recently, the use of a cantilever has been proposed (Fig 11). The biggest
difference resides in the fact that the Herbst style appliance is fitted directly
to the lower molar bands through a cantilever arm. This system means that
crowns have to be fitted to the upper and lower molars. The cantilever
secured to the mandibular stainless steel crowns has a disadvantage in that
the thickness of the screw mechanism can impinge on the patients cheek.
The parts are available in kit form with pre-welded screw mechanisms and
cantilever arms on crowns of seven different sizes.

Figure 11.
3. MALU Herbst Appliance (Saga Dental Supply A/S, postboks 216,
Kongsviner, Norway)

The MALU Mandibular Advancement Locking Unit is a recently developed

attachment device for the Herbst (Fig 12). It consists of two tubes, two
plungers, two upper "Mobee" hinges with ball pins and two lower key hinges
with brass pins.

Figure 12.

The major advantages are the lower cost, no laboratory needed, flexibility
and the possibility of using combined with edgewise therapy. [24,35]

Each upper Mobee hinge is inserted into the hole at the end of the MALU tube
and secured to the first molar headgear tube with ball pin. Each lower key
hinge is inserted into the hole at the end of the plunger and locked to the
base arch, distal to the cuspid, with the brass pin.

4. Flip-Lock Herbst Appliance (TP Orthodontics, Inc., 100 Center Plaza,

LaPorte, IN 46350).

This is the third generation of ball-joint Herbst appliances available from this
company. The first generation was made from a dense polysulfone plastic but
 breakage occurred because of the forces generated within the ball-joint
attachment (Fig 13).

Figure 13.

In the second generation, the plastic was replaced with metal (Fig 14).
However, fracture problems persisted.

Figure 14.

The third generation is made of a horse-shoe ball joint (Fig 15). This system
has proved to be more efficient than the previous models, both in terms of
application as well as its resistance to fracture [40] (Miller R., 1996).

Figure 15. Final Pano

One of the advantages of this appliance over other similar appliances with a
ball joint, is that it is thinner and smaller which means greater patient
comfort.

5. The Ventral Telescope (Professional Positioners, Inc., 2525 Three Mile Road,
Racine Wisconsin 53404 1328).
 This was the first telescopic RFFA that appeared as a single unit; i.e. upon
reaching maximum opening it does not come apart (Fig 16).

Figure 16.

This appliance is available in two sizes and fixing is achieved through ball
attachments. It is particularly easy to activate. The operation is simple and is
carried out by unscrewing the tube thus allowing an activation of around 3
mm.

Its disadvantages lie in the fact that it is quite thick and suffers from fractures
to the brake which stabilizes the joint. As with the other appliances where
fixing is achieved through ball attachments, great accuracy is necessary with
regard to inclination and the welding of components.

6. The Magnetic Telescopic Device [41] (Ritto A.K., 1997 and author of this
article)

This consists of two tubes and two plungers with a semi-circular section and
with NdFeB magnets placed in such a manner that a repelling force is exerted
(Fig 17). Fitting is achieved by using the MALU system.

Figure 17.

This appliance has the advantage of linking a magnetic field to the functional
appliance. Its main disadvantages are its thickness, the laboratory work
necessary to prepare it and the covering of the magnets.

7. The Mandibular Protraction Appliance [7-9] (MPA) (Filho C., 1995, 1997,
1998)

This is an RFFA which was developed to be quickly made up by the

orthodontist in the laboratory (Fig.18).

Figure 18.
 Its advantages include ease of manufacture, low cost, infrequent breakage,
patient comfort and rapid fitting.

Another advantage it offers is that it can be made up at any time. This is

helpful when there has been a failure in the supply of other commercially
available appliances or if the orthodontist practices in an area where it is
difficult to quickly obtain certain other alternatives.

The designer of the MPA developed three different types:

MPA I each side of the appliance is made by bending a small loop at a right
angle to the end of an .032" SS wire. The length of the appliance is then
determined by protruding the mandible and another small right-angle circle is
then bent in an opposite direction. The appliance slides distally along the
mandibular archwire and mesially along the maxillary archwire. Bicuspid
brackets must be debonded.

Limited mouth opening is the major disadvantage.

MPA II this is made by making right-angles circles in two pieces of .032" SS

wire. A small piece of slipped coil is slipped over one of the wires. One end of
each wire is then inserted through the loop in the other wire. This version
allows the mouth to open wider than the first version.

MPA III This version eliminates much of the archwire stress that occurs with
the MPA I and II. It permits a greater range of jaw movement while keeping
the mandible in a protruded position. It is adaptable to either Class II or Class
III malocclusions.nIt resembles the Herbst by also incorporating a telescoping
mechanism but is smaller in size. It requires more time to be built and a good
electronic welder that does not darken or weaken the wire.

8. The Universal Bite Jumper [5] (UBJ) (Calvez X., 1998).

 This is like a Herbst but is smaller in size and more versatile it can be used
in all phases of treatment in mixed or permanent dentition, Class II or III
malocclusions. An active coil spring can be added if necessary (Fig 19).

Figure 19.

No laboratory preparation is required. It is fitted in the patients mouth and

cut to the appropriate length for the desired mandibular advancement.

Activations are made by crimping 2-4 mm splint bushings onto the rods. UBJs
with nickel titanium coil springs do not need to be reactivated.

9. The BioPedic Appliance (GAC International, Inc., 185 Oval Drive, Central
Islip, NY 11722 1402).

This is a bite jumping appliance which is engaged on the maxillary and

mandibular molars, using a cantilever like system. It is then attached to a
BioPedic buccal tube (Fig 20).

Figure 20.

Activation is achieved by sliding the appliance along the buccal tube and
fixing the screw. It is universally sized for left and right sides.Two pivots on
the ends allow the appliance to be rotated when the patient opens his mouth.
10.The Mandibular Anterior Repositioning Appliance [6] (MARA) (AOA,
13931 Spring Street, PO Box 725, Sturtevant, WI 53177).

This was created by Douglas Toll of Germany in 1991. It consisted of cams on

the molars which guided the patient to bite into Class I (Fig 21).

Figure 21.

The first molars have to be covered with stainless steel crowns and the
appliance must be laboratory manufactured.

The patient can pull back his mandible to a Class II relation but will be unable
to achieve intercuspidation. This means that the lower molars will make
direct contact with the metal, giving an unpleasant sensation. Furthermore,
should the orthodontist opt for bands instead of crowns, fractures will often
occur. The appliance design allows for use in conjunction with braces. It can
be used for Class II treatment and for TMJ problems.

In our opinion, this is an appliance of simple characteristics which allows good

hygiene during the correction stage. With a small modification to the original
design using only wire and composite, a very interesting appliance can be
created for finishing treatment of a Class II malocclusion treated with a
functional appliance.

11.The IST Appliance (Sheu Dental, 58613 Iserlohn, Germany).

The Intraoral Snoring-Therapy Appliance is a new device designed by Hinz in

order to treat patients who suffers from breathing problems during sleep, e.g.
obstructive sleep apnea (Fig 22). According to the inventor, the IST appliance
suppresses snoring by moving the lower jaw forward reducing the obstruction
in the pharyngeal area.

Figure 22.
 The device offers two very important advantages:

o The telescope is threaded so the orthodontist can change the

protrusion on each side individually up to 8mm.
o An end stop in the guiding sleeve prevents the telescope from
disengaging.

The appliance is available in two different lengths.

12.The Ritto Appliance [10-13] (Ritto A.K., 1998 and author of this article)
(Please see www.oc-j.com/ritto/ritto.htm)

The Ritto Appliance can be described as a miniaturized telescopic device with

simplified intraoral application and activation (Fig 23).

Figure 23.
The construction of this appliance is based on the mechanism and function
used in the Ventral Telescope adapted for use in conjunction with a fixed
appliance.

The main differences when compared to the Ventral Telescope appliance are:

o The appliance does not come apart (no disengagement after achieving
maximum extension).
o The smaller size facilitates adaptation and it does not affect aesthetic
appearance or speech.

o It comes in a single format which allows it to be used on both sides and

is available in only one size.

The Ritto Appliance is simple to use, comfortable, cost effective, breakage

resistant and requires no patient cooperation.

The fact that the appliance does not disengage creates enormous
advantages. It eliminates the time lost in measuring length before fitting, as
in other appliances. This feature makes it possible to fit the appliance in
approximately 5 minutes and remove it in about half that time.

It is even possible to carry out the treatment of Class II retromandibular cases

in mixed or permanent dentition using only conventional bands on the upper
molars and two tubes on the lower molars and brackets on the lower incisors.

Fixation accessories consist of a steel ball pin and a lock (Fig 24). Upper
fixation is carried out by placing a steel ball pin from the distal into the .045
headgear tube on the upper molar band, through the appliance eyelet and
then bending it back as shown in (Fig 25).

Figure 24.
Figure 25.

The appliance is fixed onto a prepared the lower arch. The thickness and type
of arch is chosen, its length is adjusted, locks are fitted and the Ritto
appliance is then inserted (Fig 26).

Figure 26.

Activation is achieved by sliding the lock along the lower arch in the distal
direction and then fixing it against the Ritto Appliance (Fig 27).

Figure 27.
The most common question raised after the presentation of this appliance is
on the effect produced on the lower incisors, given that the lower anchorage
system is minimal. In a comparative study between the Ritto Appliance and
the Herbst appliance, no statistically significant differences were found in the
position of the lower incisors (II to A/pog; II to Pancherz plan). In a scanogram
analysis of the lower incisors, no indication of radicular resorption was found
during treatment with the appliance.

According to the authors, these results are due to the fact the protocol with
regard to patient selection was closely followed as were the 3 keys for the
success of treatment. [25]

Many orthodontists may have experienced the frustration of continual

breakage which discourages the use of fixed functional appliances (FFAs).

In functional treatment with a rigid fixed functional appliance (RFFA), it is

necessary to prepare the patient for 1 to 2 months before fitting the
appliance to stimulate musculature and avoid having the patient exert too
much force on the support systems, causing appliance breakage or unwanted
dental movement. For this reason, the use of a mini-stimulator for mandibular
advancement is advised. This is a thermoformed splint of 0.7 mm in
thickness, for the upper incisors only and incorporating an acrylic bite block
for the lower incisors. The bite block is constructed with the mandible in a
forward position (Fig 28).

Figure 28.

For the first 15 days or 1 month, the patient should wear the splint for as long
as possible and maintain the lower incisors fitted into the Bite block. In the
following weeks, the patient should practice swallowing exercises with the
lips in contact and with lower incisors against the bite block.

Only after this stage should therapy be started with the Ritto Appliance, now
that the musculature has been stimulated and the patient has memorized the
forward position of the mandible. Delocking of the occlusion is also achieved.

It is possible to fit the Ritto appliance in conjunction with the mini stimulator
for the first few weeks (Fig 29).

Figure 29.
 Another important factor that contributes to comfort and rapid patient
adaptation is the establishment of posterior contact after the advancement of
the mandible. This also creates a posterior proprioceptive sense. It is not
always necessary to have perfect coordination of the arches before starting
functional treatment. Sometimes, even with a pronounced Curve of Spee,
therapy can be started as long as some artificial contacts are constructed
with composites on the molars (Fig 30). The extrusion of the premolars can
be beneficial in the correction of a vertical problem.

Figure 30.

Hybrid Appliances

There are also new appliances that can been classified as hybrid appliances
because they represent the combination of a rigid fixed functional appliance (RFFA)
with flexible fixed functional appliance (FFFA). They could be described as rigid
appliances with coilspring-type systems.

The objective of these appliances is to move the teeth by applying 24-hour elastic
continuous force that would replace the traditional use of elastics and extra-oral
force. Their common feature the use of coiled springs to produce this force. The
force generated varies between 150 and 200 gm. Other advantages include
reduction in the need for patient cooperation and the ease of placement.

We should be aware that the primary objective of the hybrid appliances is not to
reposition the mandible anteriorly. If such was the case, it would be illogical to
reposition a mandible and at the same time to keep exerting mesial inferior and
distal superior force. Rigid fixed functional appliances offer the best choice to obtain
this goal, as is well documented in the literature. With RFFAs, once the appliance
has been activated the patient cannot close in centric relation during the therapy
stage.

In order to obtain the best possible results with a goal of skeletal movement, the
author proposes a philosophy of using muscular pre-stimulation before the
placement of the fixed appliance. This is in conjunction with a treatment plan based
on an individualized pattern model. (The subject of the individualized pattern model
will be presented in a subsequent article in this journal. )

A general inconvenience with rigid fixed functional appliances is the fact that the
fixed appliance needs to be placed as a whole, to establish the necessary
anchorage. Also, control of the vestibular movement of the lower incisors is
important. In such cases it is sometimes necessary to resort to other anchorage
appliances. As such, it can be rather difficult to use these appliances in mixed
dentition.

THE CALIBRATED FORCE MODULE

It was a fixed appliance designed to substitute Class II elastics and it was developed
in 1988 by the CorMar Inc. Available in three sizes, it was applied to the inferior arch
close to the molars and fixed by a screw, and mesial or distal to upper cuspids, and
also fixed to the arch. Its coil spring produced a force between 150 and 200 gm (Fig
31).

Figure 31.
The same company proposed a Herbst appliance with an exterior coil spring,
attached to the inferior tube. That system generated tooth movement by employing
gentle and continuous force 24 hours a day (Fig 32).

Figure 32.

EUREKA SPRING

This appliance appeared on the market in 1996 and it was developed by DeVicenzo
and Steve Prins. It is a three part telescopic appliance fixed to the upper arch at the
level of the molar band and to the lower arch distal to the cuspid. A detailed users
manual with all the indications and instructions for its use accompanies the
appliance.

The appliance has an open coil spring that is placed inside of a part of the system.
Interestingly the authors caution in the manual that the appliance does not create
any orthopedic effect, but underline that the correction is totally dentoalveolar.

The placement system is relatively simple, and the patient can open his or her
mouth widely without any difficulties due to the telescopic effect of the appliance. It
is available in two sizes: 20 and 23 mm long. The appliance is universal and it can
be applied both to the right as well as to the left side (Fig 33).

Figure 33.

Eureka Spring is a trademark of Eureka Spring, San Louis Obispo, California 93401

THE TWIN FORCE BITE CORRECTOR

This appliance differs from others in form and constitution because it has two
internal coil springs. It consists of two joint telescopic systems. At the superior level
it is fixed with a ball pin that is fitted into the buccal tube of a molar band. The
placement in the lower arch is slightly different; it involves a fitting-in system that is
later fixed with a screw to the inferior arch. Normally it is placed distal to the lower
cuspid.

Generally this type of fixing allows for rapid placement and removal of the
appliance. It is available in two sizes and accompanied by a screwdriver to fix the
screw in the lower arch.

Such as in the previous appliance its application vary between Class II and Class III
treatment, and it may be also used as an anchorage system.

In our opinion, due to its original configuration, these appliances are suitable for
cases where there is a need to carry out correction that requires predominantly
dentoalveolar movement. In order to avoid protrusion of the lower incisors it is
recommended to use stronger steel wires or to resort to other accessories.

The major drawback of this appliance is the difficulty to control the force. If we want
less force, we should bend the mesial part of the ball pin in order to have more wire
distal to the tube. This situation, however, may create discomfort and impingement
problems (Fig 34).

Figure 34.
Figure 35.

The other disadvantage lies in the fact that the lower the lower dentition needs to
be already aligned as it is recommended to use 016"x.022, or 017"x.025" stainless
steel wires that guarantee necessary anchorage. In this way the device is in
principle recommended for permanent dentition.

For Class III correction it is necessary to put a lip bumper tube (LBT) on the lower
molar band.

Recently the third modernized version of the appliance has been presented under
the name "Twin Force Bite Corrector Double Lock" (Fig 36). It is reduced in size and
both the lower and upper placement is based on the system of lock-on screws. This
new version facilitates the use of the appliance for Class III correction and it allows
for a slightly better control of the force although it still falls short of the full control.

THE TWIN FORCE BITE CORRECTOR is a trademark of Ortho Organizers Inc., 1619s
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. San Marcos CA92069.

FORSUS FATIGUE RESISTANT DEVICE

This is an innovative three telescopic appliance with a coil spring in its exterior part.
This feature makes it resemble some flexible functional appliances (AFF).

In comparison with AFF its great advantage lies in coil spring resistance to breaking.
The coil spring is applied by its sliding on a rigid surface avoiding in this way
angulations at the fixing points.
It is sold in kits that include different length sizes for left and right side (Fig 37).

Figure 37.

In the original presentation the appliance is placed in the mandible on the round-
segmented arch that is included in the kit. The appliance slides along the arch and
facilitates opening of the mouth and lateral movements. The resulting force
concentrates more on the anterior and inferior sectors.

In this way there is no interference with continuous arches used during the
treatment, which offers wide application independently of the method applied.

The appliance may be fixed in various ways according to the needs of the patient
(Fig 38).

Figure 38, 39.

The device gives you the power to control the amount of force, whether through
various available sizes, or through the direct attachment to the lower arch and the
use of a stop for activation. Thus the appliance may be used in cases of mixed
dentition and it allows for dental asymmetry correction when higher force on both
sides is needed.

The device allows your patient to open and move their jaw freely.

Another device from the same company is the FORSUS NITINOL FLAT SPRING
which presents a Nitinol flat wire instead of the coil (Fig 40).

Figure 40, 41.

The appliances flat surface is more esthetically acceptable and it offers more
comfort.

It is available in various sizes for different patients or to get more activation.

Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring requires no laboratory setup, making chairside installation
quick and easy. The Forsus Nitinol Flat Springs, available in three different bypass
designs, accommodate a variety of molar attachments making it compatible with
your current appliance system. This flexibility eliminates your need for specialty
molar attachments and reduces your inventory of bands and tubes.

The Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring is slim, flat and made of Super-Elastic Nitinol. Nitinol is
always at work, delivering consistent forces. Force levels remain constant from the
initial setup to the time of removal. The result is faster, more efficient treatment.
FORSUS is a trademark of 3M Unitek Corporation, 2724 South Peck Road, Monrovia,
CA 91016.

ALPERN CLASS II CLOSERS

This appliance is slightly different from the preceding ones and it is also the most
recent. It is predominantly applied in Class II correction and as a substitute for
elastics. It consists of a small telescopic appliance with an interior coil spring and
two hooks for fixing (Fig 42).

Figure 42.

It functions in the same way as elastics and, similarly, is fixed to the lower molar
and to the upper cuspid. It is available in three different sizes. Its telescopic action
enables a comfortable opening of the mouth.

GAC International, Inc., 185 Oval Drive, Islandia, NY 11749

Discussion

Relying on published articles to date, we can state that FFFAs as well as Hybrid
appliances produce greater dental movement during treatment than RFFAs. This is
due to the type of force they produce. They also allow the patient to close in centric
relation during the therapy stage. In our opinion, these appliances are suitable for
cases where there is a need to carry out correction that requires predominantly
dento-alveolar movement.

When RFFAs initially appeared, they were intended for the correction of Class II
retrusive mandibles. They are considered to be excellent functional appliances and
are considered as non-invasive orthopedic appliances similar to rapid maxillary
expanders. Their method of activation is quite different from that of FFFAs given
that the patient cannot close in centric relation during treatment. The mandible is in
a forward position for 24 hours a day and the type of force exerted by the appliance
is a postural variable force. Their main indication is Class II skeletal cases, where it
is necessary to advance the mandible to stimulate growth and harmonize skeletal
defects.

Dental movement with both appliances is always achievable. If in some cases we

can take advantage of this benefit, in others we have to try and impede more
common dental movements, especially movement related to the labial version of
the lower incisors.

For many years now various methods have been suggested to increase anchorage
with a view toward avoiding unwanted dental movements. Lingual arches, the
thickness of the arch wires, the introduction of torque in the arch wires and the use
of lower incisor brackets with lingual torque are some examples.

The evolution of support systems is, in our opinion, a backward step in the scientific
and technological progress that is foreseen for the next century. Initially, appliances
were supported on bands, then came the use of rigid bands, connections welded to
the bands, the introduction of crowns on the upper molars and then on the crowns
on all molars and sometimes on the lower pre-molars. The introduction of the
cantilever increased further still the thickness of the wires that were being used as
means of support.

In our 11 years of experience with the Ritto Appliance, we have come to the
conclusion that the "devolution" of the other systems is not the functional
philosophy for the next century. In addition to considerable time lost in the
laboratory and the associated cost, it also means an increase in treatment time and
discomfort for the patient. Too much time is spent fitting crowns, cementing, waiting
in the lab, removing the appliance for repairs and refitting and recementing bands
for finishing. This is a highly uncomfortable experience for the patient.

We have found with the Ritto appliance that to avoid breakage problems and
unwanted dental movements, and to be successful with the treatment, it is
extremely important to prepare the patient and stimulate the musculature with the
mini splint before fitting the RFFAs. This can be achieved in 6 weeks.

The qualities that functional appliances should present can be summarized as

follows:

Patient comfort and acceptance are excellent

They promote better compliance

They offer an extensive range of motion

They are simple and inexpensive

They are easier to fit

They are adaptable to either Class II or III

They can be used for mandibular positioning or dentoalveolar movement

They cause less breakage of archwires and appliances and thus fewer
emergency appointments

Inventory requirements are minimal The appliance can be used on either

side of the mouth and there is only one size
 They can be used at any stage of treatment mixed or permanent

Their low profile results in considerably less buccal irritation

They produce good results without the need for patient cooperation.

References

1. Olivier R.G., Knappman J.M. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. British Journal of

Orthodontics 1985; 12:179-88.

2. Ngan P., Kess B., Wilson S., Perception of discomfort by patients undergoing
orthodontic treatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dent. Orthop. 1989; 96:47-53.

3. Herbst E. Atlas und Grundriss der Zahnrztlichen Orthopdie. Munich, Germany,

J.F. Lehmann Verlag, 1910.

4. Pancherz H. Treatment of Class II malocclusions by jumping the bite with the

Herbst appliance. A cephalometric investigation. Am. J. Orthod. 1979; 76: 423-442.

5. Calvez X. The universal bite jumper. J. Clinical Orthod. 1998; 32: 493-499.

6. Eckart E. Introducing the MARA. Clinical Impressions 1998; 7: 2-5.

7. Filho C.M. Mandibular Protraction Appliances for Class II Treatment. J. Clin. Orthod.
1995; 29: 319 336.

8. Filho C.M. Clinical Applications of the Mandibular Protraction Appliance. J. Clin.

Orthod. 1997; 31: 92 102.

9. Filho C.M. The Mandibular Protraction Appliance III. J. Clin. Orthod. 1998; 32: 379-
384.

10. Ritto A.K. Aparelhos funcionais fixos novidades para o prximo sculo.
Ortodontia, 1998; 2: 124-150.

11. Ritto A.K. The Ritto Appliance a new fixed functional device. Orthodontic
CyberJournal June 1999 (http://www.oc-j.com/ritto/ritto.htm).

12. Ritto A.K. El Aparato de Ritto Colocation e Activation. Ortodoncia Clinica 1999;
2 (3) (in press)

13. Ritto A.K. Fixed Functional Appliances Trends for the next century. The
Functional Orthodontist 1999; 16 (2) 122 135.

14. West R.P. The adjustable bite corrector. J. Clinical Orthod. 1995; 29: 650-57.

15. Klapper L. The SUPERspring II: A new appliance for non-compliant class II
patients. J. Clin. Orthod. 1999; 33: 50-54.
16. Jasper J.J. The Jasper Jumper a fixed functional appliance. Sheboygan,
wisconsin: American Orthodontics, 1987.

17. Jasper J.J., McNamara J. The correction of interarch malocclusions using a fixed
force module. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1995; 108: 641-50.

18. Erdogan E., Erdogan E. Asymmetric Application of the Jasper Jumper in the
correction of midline discrepancies. J. Clin. Orthod. 1998; 32: 170 80.

19. Cope J.B., Buschang P., Cope D.D., Parker J., Blackwood H.O. Quantitative
evolution of craniofacial changes with Jasper Jumper Therapy. Angle Othod. 1994; 64
(2): 113 122.

20. Cash R.G. Case Report: adult nonextraction treatment with a Jasper Jumper. J.
Clin. Orthod. 1991; 25: 43-7.

21. Castaon R., Valdes M., White L.W. Clinical use of the Churro Jumper. J. Clin.
Orthod. 1998; 32: 731 45.

22. Blackwood H.O. Clinical Management with the Jasper Jumper. J. Clin. Orthod.
1991; 25: 755-60.

23. Amoric M. Les Ressorts intermaxillaires en torsion. Rev. Orthop. Dento Facial
1994; 28: 115 117.

24. Shiavoni R., Bonapace C., Grenga V. Modified Edgewise-Herbst Appliance. J. Clin.
Orthod. 1996; 30: 681 87.

25. Ricketts R. M. The keystone triad II. Growth, treatment and clinical significance.
Am. J. Orthod. 1964; 50: 728-50.

26. Petrovic A.G., Stutzmann J., Outdet C., Control processes in the postnatal growth
of the mandibular condylar cartilage in: McNamara J.A.ed Determinants of
mandihular form and growth. Monograph 4. Craniofocial Growth Series. Ann Arbor:
Center of Human Growth and Development University of Michigan, 1975:101-53.

27. Nashed R.R., Reynolds I.R. A cephalometric investigation of overjet changes in

fifty severe Class II division 1 malocclusions. Br. J. Orthod. 1989; 16: 31-37.

28. Mills J.R.E. The effect of functional appliances on the skeletal pattern. Br. J.
Orthod. 1982; 18: 267-75.

29. McNamara J.A., Carlson D.S. Quantitative analysis of temporomandibular Joint

adaptations to protrusive function Am J Orthod 1979; 76: 593-611.

30. McNamara J.A. Components of Class II malocclusion in children 8-10 years of

age. Angle Orthod 1981; 51: 177-202.
31. Illing H.M., Morris D.O., Lee R.T. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and
Twin Block appliances. Part I the hard tissues. Europ. J. Orthod. 1998; 20: 501-516.

32. Hilgers J.J. Hyperefficient Orthodontic treatment using tandem mechanics.

Semin. Orthod. 1998; 4: 17-25.

33. Heather M. L., Morris D. O., Lee R.T. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator
and Twin Block appliances. Part I- the hard tissues. Eurp. J. Orthod. 1998; 20: 501-
516.

34. Harvold E., Vargervik K. Morphogenetic response to activator treatment. Am. J.

Orthod. 1971; 60: 478-90.

35. Haegglund P. The Swedish-Style Integrated Herbst Appliance. J. Clin. Orthod.

1997; 31: 378 390.

36. Dischinger T. Edgewise Herbst Appliance. J. Clin. Orthod. 1995; 29: 738 742.

37. Burke G., Major P., Glover K., Prasad N. Correlations between condylar
characteristics and facial morphology in Class II preadolescent patients. Am. J.
Orthod. Dentof. Orthop. 1998; 114: 328-36.

38. Pancherz H. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment.

Am. J. Orthod. 1982; 87: 1-20.

39. Pancherz H. The Herbst appliance its biological effects and clinical use. Am. J.
Orthod. 1985; 87: 1-20.

40. Miller R.A. The Flip-lock Herbst Appliance. J. Clin. Orthod. 1996; 30: 552 58.

41. Ritto A.K. Tratamento das Classes II diviso 1 com a Biela Magntica. Tese
dissert. 1997.

Contributed by:

A Korrodi Ritto D.D.S., Ph.D.

The author has financial interest in the Ritto Appliance.