33 ^rd Annual World Dentistry Summit April 08-09, 2019 Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Evaluation of treatment outcome and long-term stability of class II correction by Forsus\r\n\r\nFatigue Resistant Device – Case Report\r\n\r\nAim\r\nAmong the various treatment methods introduced to treat Class II malocclusion, fixed functional\r\ntreatment approach is widely used. To date, only few studies evaluated the long term post-treatment\r\neffects induced by fixed rigid functional appliances, while no previous study assessed the post-treatment\r\neffects of hybrid fixed-functional appliances on post-peak patients. In this case report, two patients were\r\npresented to investigate stability and possible relapse following the use of Forsus “fatigue resistant\r\ndevice”.\r\nSubject\r\nTwo post-peak patients with class II malocclusion were treated in the department of orthodontics –\r\nMarmara University with the fixed functional protocol using Forsus, the treatment was performed\r\nbetween 2014 & 2016, and the patients were followed up after two years in 2018.\r\nMethod\r\nLateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the end of the treatment and at the follow up session. The\r\nlateral cephalometric radiographs were traced, superimposed and evaluated by one person at two different\r\ntimes, with a mean being formed from the two measurements, using NemoCeph program.\r\nResults\r\nCase #1 Post-treatment Post-retention\r\nSNA 85 85\r\nSNB 79 78.5\r\nANB 6 6.5\r\nAr (articular angle) 139 141\r\nGo (Gonial angle) 132 128\r\nSN/MP 36 37\r\nANS-Me/N-Me% 50.3 50.4\r\nOverjet (mm) 4.3 4.9\r\nOverbite (mm) 2.3 2\r\nSN/OP (occlusal plane) 17 19\r\nU1SN 117 117\r\nIMPA 99 99\r\n\r\nResults for case #1 illustrate significant differences for the cephalometric variables, which indicates that\r\nthe class II correction did not last in the long-term and the treatment was not stable.\r\n\r\nCase #2 Post-treatment Post-retention\r\nSNA 77 77\r\nSNB 72 72\r\nANB 5 5\r\nAr (articular angle) 141 141\r\nGo (Gonial angle) 133 134\r\nSN/MP 37 38\r\nANS-Me/N-Me% 54.5 54.5\r\nOverjet (mm) 2.6 2.8\r\nOverbite (mm) 2.3 2.5\r\nSN/OP (occlusal plane) 20 20\r\nU1SN 97 97\r\nIMPA 100 99\r\n\r\nResults for case #2 did not reveal any significant differences for the cephalometric variables, which\r\nindicates that the class II correction lasts in the long-term and the treatment is stable.\r\nConclusion\r\nAt the end of the post retention period of these two cases it is clear that a major controversy over fixed\r\nfunctional appliances “Forsus” whether the class II correction lasts in the long-term. Furthermore, it is\r\nworth highlighting that there is lack of studies dealing with the appliance long-term effects.\r\nFor these reasons a study at Marmara University about this subject will be done in order to advance our\r\nunderstanding about the effects of the fixed functional devices and to answer the apprehensions about the\r\nstability of this treatment approach.\r\nREFERENCES\r\nGiorgio Cacciatorea; Luis Tomas Huanca Ghislanzonib; Lisa Alvetroc; Veronica Giuntinid; Lorenzo\r\nFranchie. Treatment and posttreatment effects induced by the Forsus appliance A controlled clinical\r\nstudy. Angle Orthodontist. 2014; 84-6.

Céline Nicolas graduated in Veterinary Medicine in 2005 and as a PhD in 2007 from the University of Nantes (France). She then worked as a Post-doctoral fellow and Research Assistant at the University of Bristol (UK) and at the University of Nice (France). She joined Virbac in 2016 where she is now working as a medical manager.

The tolerance of the dental chew VEGGIEDENT® FR3SH™ (Virbac, Carros, France) containing the FR3SH™ technology (pomegranate, erythritol and inulin) for fresh breath, was evaluated in dogs. \r\nIn this study, 8 dogs (4 males and 4 females) received 1 VEGGIEDENT® FR3SH™ chew per day (recommended quantity), 8 dogs (4 males and 4 females) received 5 VEGGIEDENT® FR3SH™ chews per day (i.e. 5 times the recommended quantity) and 4 received no chew (2 males and 2 females - control). The food ration was adapted accordingly. The study included a 14-day acclimation phase before day 0 and a 28-day administration phase. \r\nAnimals were housed in pairs and observed daily. A complete clinical examination including rectal temperature was performed once a week. Body weight was measured twice a week. Food consumption and feces examination (5-scale scoring) were assessed daily. Blood samples were taken during acclimation phase (D-14) and at the end of the study (Day 28) for hematology and blood biochemistry. Extra samples were taken following abnormal results in 2 dogs treated for bite wounds. \r\nAll dogs ate the chews as expected during the 28 days, except for one female in the group receiving 5 chews who took approximately 80% of the expected quantity throughout the study. \r\nFood consumption, body weight and rectal temperature were not affected by the product intake. \r\nNo clinical signs or gastro-intestinal disorders were considered to be product-related during the study. Hematology and blood biochemistry parameters were not impacted by VEGGIEDENT® FR3SH™ chews even with 5 times the recommended amount. Therefore, the VEGGIEDENT® FR3SH™ chew is safe for dogs even when given for 28 days up to 5 times the recommended amount of 1 per day.\r\n

Céline Nicolas graduated in Veterinary Medicine in 2005 and as a PhD in 2007 from the University of Nantes (France). She then worked as a Post-doctoral fellow and Research Assistant at the University of Bristol (UK) and at the University of Nice (France). She joined Virbac in 2016 where she is now working as a medical manager

VET AQUADENT™ FR3SH™ is a water additive for dogs and cats containing the FR3SH™ technology (pomegranate, erythritol and inulin, from natural origin) to target the origins of bad breath. Its efficiency to reduce bad breath was tested on healthy pets and compared to a water additive containing chlorhexidine (CHX). Four groups of dogs and cats received either VET AQUADENT™ FR3SH™ (FR3SH, n=24 and 27, respectively) or the CHX formula (n=25 and 19, respectively).\r\nThe pets tested the water additive for 14 days and a questionnaire was filled twice daily by the owner to assess, on a 0-7 scale, the strength of breath odour, pleasantness of pet’s breath and product’s easiness of use and to provide an estimation of the daily water consumption and their perception compared to the usual amount. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare the data over time and a Mann-Whitney test was used to compare groups. Difference was significant if p<0.05.\r\nThe average score for the strength of breath odor significantly decreased (p<0.01) with both products from day 1 to day 14 (-1.3 in both groups for dogs; -1.2 and -1.1 in cats for FR3SH and CHX, respectively. No statistical difference - NS - between products). The pleasantness of breath odor significantly increased (p<0.01) in all groups (+ 0.9 vs + 1.3 in dogs and +1.3 vs + 1.1 in cats with FR3SH and CHX, respectively. NS between products). With both water additives, around 80% of owners rated their pet’s breath smell as good or excellent. There was no significant difference between products for the perception of the amount of water drank by the dog. The easiness of use (score of 6.7/7) and recommendation rate (≥ 70%) were also similar between products.\r\nThese data suggest that VET AQUADENT™ FR3SH™ solution is as efficient as a water additive containing chlorhexidine to reduce pet’s bad breath.\r\n