Ince-Bingol, SinemKaya, BurcakBayram, BurakArman-Ozcirpici, Ayca2021-05-312021-05-3120201432-6981http://hdl.handle.net/11727/5934Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate the treatment efficiency of miniplate anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (MAF) as compared with the activator appliance. Materials and methods Mandibular retrognathia was treated with two methods, the MAF group (8 girls, 11 boys, mean age 13.03 +/- 0.69 years) and the activator group (7 girls, 12 boys, mean age 12.68 +/- 0.73 years). An untreated control group (9 girls, 10 boys, mean age 12.95 +/- 0.73 years) was constructed to eliminate growth-related changes through the American Association of Orthodontists Foundation Legacy Collection. Data of 114 lateral cephalograms were analyzed. Results The inhibition of the maxillary growth was greater in the MAF group, whereas forward displacement of the mandible was higher in the activator group (P < 0.05). Sagittal maxillomandibular relation was improved similarly in both treatment groups (P < 0.05). Mandibular length was increased in both treatment groups with the highest increase in the activator group (P < 0.05). Retroclination of the incisors was observed in the MAF group (P < 0.05). The upper lip was retruded in the MAF group and lower lip was protruded in the activator group (P < 0.05). Conclusion The activator created greater mandibular changes, whereas the MAF provides somewhat smaller mandibular changes due to the restriction caused by retroclined maxillary incisorsenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessActivator applianceClass II malocclusionFixed functional appliancesMandibular advancementSkeletal anchoragearticle253150515120005487673000012-s2.0-85087962532