A 16-year-old female patient presented with a chief complaint of proclined upper incisors. Intraoral examination revealed an end-on molar relationship on right and left sides, on Class II skeletal base characterized by an orthognathic maxilla and retrognathic mandible, with tooth 12 positioned lingually, mild crowding in the lower arch increased overjet and deep overbite . EXTRA ORALLY Mild convex profile, normal naso-labial angle, mesocephalic profile, deep mentolabial sulcus, on 2 finger test, it shows positive lip step, clinical VTO was positive, Compitent lips

Complete oral prophylaxis was done. Teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid. McLaughlin Bennett Trevisi (MBT) 022 slot brackets were bonded using transbond composite resin. MBT bracket positioning gauge was used to position the bracket. MBT chart was used for the placement of the bracket. The brackets were cured for 20 seconds using LED light cure. Non extraction treatment plan was decided for both the cases. . Once alignment was achieved, Class II correction was carried out using the Power Scope functional appliance, which was attached to 0.019 x 0.025 stainless steel arch wires in both the upper and lower arches, allowing for lateral jaw movements. After achieving a Class I molar relationship bilaterally, the Power Scope appliance along with the fixed orthodontic brackets were removed, and upper and lower Hawley’s retainers were delivered.

CEPH COMPARISON PARAMETERS PRE- APPLIANCE DELIVERY POST APPLIANCE REMOVEL SNA 84 83.5 SNB 77 77 ANB 7 6.5 UI-NA 21 23.5 UI-NA mm 2.5 4 LI-NB 27 38 LI-NB mm 5 9 IMPA 92 106 GONIAL ANGLE 130 127 ARTICULAR ANGLE 147 136 SADDLE ANGLE 139 128 CASE REPORT 11 21 year old female patient came with chief complaint of proclined upper incisor. Upon clinical examination, intra orally class 1 molar relation on both sides with class11 skeletal base (orthognathic maxilla and retrognathic mandible) with lrotated 33 and 15, proclined upper and lower incisors, increased overjet and deep overbite EXTRA ORALLY Competent lips Mild convex profile, normal naso-labial angle, mesocephalic profile, deep mentolabial sulcus, on 2 finger test, it shows positive lip step, clinical VTO was positive, TREATMENT PLANNING On the lateral cephalogram, the patient showed minimal remaining growth. Therefore, before addressing the dental issues, it was decided to first correct the sagittal skeletal discrepancy, as cephalometric analysis revealed a shortened mandibular body length. Bite registration was completed with the molars in a super Class I relationship and the incisors in an edge-to-edge position. A Herbst appliance was delivered, and all necessary instructions were provided to the patient. The patient underwent 9 months of active treatment with the Herbst appliance Complete oral prophylaxis was done. Teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid. McLaughlin Bennett Trevisi (MBT) 022 slot brackets were bonded using transbond composite resin. MBT bracket positioning gauge was used to position the bracket. MBT chart was used for the placement of the bracket. Brackets were bonded on the upper and lower anterior teeth while the Herbst appliance was maintained in place for an additional 2 months. The Herbst appliance was then removed, a reverse inclined plane was delivered, and bonding was completed on the remaining teeth. CEPH COMPARISON PARAMETRS PRE-APPLIANCE DELIVERY POST- APPLIANCE REMOVEL SNA 81 80.5 SNB 75 77 ANB 6 3.5 UI-NA 31 27 UI-NA mm 7 5 LI-NB 29 35 LI-NB mm 6 8 IMPA 94 102 GONIAL ANGLE 126 120 ARTICULAR ANGLE 149 138 SADDLE ANGLE 136 127

Both patients demonstrated skeletal Class II discrepancies primarily due to mandibular retrusion. Functional appliances remain a cornerstone for such malocclusions. PowerScope, a fixed functional appliance, allowed dentoalveolar corrections in the growing patient (Case 1). The Herbst appliance, though traditionally used during growth, showed effectiveness even in young adults with minimal growth (Case 2), producing skeletal improvement and mandibular advancement. Cephalometric analysis confirmed favorable skeletal and dental changes in both cases. Case 1 demonstrated more dentoalveolar adaptation, while Case 2 showed skeletal correction with Herbst, followed by dental alignment through MBT mechanics. Both cases shown proclined lower incisors after functional therapy.The soft tissue profile and overall facial profile improved significantly in both.

PowerScope and Herbst appliances are effective in correcting skeletal Class II malocclusions. While PowerScope primarily induced dentoalveolar changes in adolescents, Herbst demonstrated skeletal benefits even in young adults. A combination of functional and fixed appliance therapy ensures optimal esthetics, occlusion, and stability.

1. Singh P, Sharma VP, Tandon P, Agarwal DK, Sharma S, Chugh VK. Treatment effects of fixed functional appliances on skeletal class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40(1):42-50. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjx040 2. Jena AK, Duggal R. Treatment effects of twin-block and PowerScope appliances in Class II malocclusion: A randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(6):807-814. doi:10.2319/122219-817.1 3. Sidlauskas M, Lopatiene K. The role of functional appliances in orthodontic treatment: A review. Stomatologija. 2015;17(2):54-60. 4. Yassir YA, McIntyre GT, Bearn DR. Effects of functional appliances on Class II malocclusion: A systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2020;21(1):1-15. doi:10.1186/s40510-020-00316-8 5. Jayachandran S, Chitharanjan AB. Comparative evaluation of skeletal and dentoalveolar changes using Herbst and Forsus appliances in Class II malocclusion. J Clin Orthod. 2016;50(6):343-352. doi:10.2319/050415-319.1 6. Chhibber A, Upadhyay M, Uribe F, Nanda R. Mechanisms of Class II correction by PowerScope appliance. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(4):593-600. doi:10.2319/072518-544.1 7. Perinetti G, Primožič J, Franchi L, Contardo L. Treatment effects of functional appliances for Class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37(5):418-434. doi:10.1093/ejo/cju071 8. Sandhu N, Sidhu MS, Sandhu SS. Fixed functional appliances in contemporary orthodontics. Indian J Dent Res. 2017;28(5):551-558. doi:10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_283_17 9. Sharma R, Arora A, Kapoor P. Comparative evaluation of treatment effects with Herbst and Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(3):410-416. doi:10.4103/ccd.ccd_106_18 10. Kannan KS, Valliathan A, Thirukonda G, Kumar KS. Management of skeletal Class II malocclusion using PowerScope appliance. J Ind Orthod Soc. 2016;50(1):32-38. doi:10.4103/0301-5742.181737 11. Elms TN, Buschang PH, Alexander RG. Long-term stability of Class II correction with Herbst. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(3):409-418. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.11.029 12. Martin J, Pancherz H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes with Herbst treatment: A review. Semin Orthod. 2017;23(2):110-117. doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2017.03.006 13. Arora A, Sharma R, Kapoor P. Correction of skeletal Class II with Forsus and PowerScope appliances: A clinical comparison. APOS Trends Orthod. 2018;8(5):241-247. doi:10.4103/apos.apos_62_18 14. Papadopoulos MA, Gkantidis N. Treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents and adults with Herbst appliance. Prog Orthod. 2019;20(1):1-10. doi:10.1186/s40510-019-0274-5 15. Jespersen E, Helm S, Melsen B. Cephalometric analysis of Herbst appliance effects in young adults. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2016;19(1):1-9. doi:10.1111/ocr.12111 16. El-Timamy AM, El-Shiekh MM, El-Shazly AH. Effects of PowerScope appliance on mandibular growth. J World Fed Orthod. 2017;6(4):139-144. doi:10.1016/j.ejoms.2017.06.009 17. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nanda R. Dentoalveolar and skeletal changes with PowerScope appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019;155(1):53-61. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.04.021 18. Yaqoob O, Ijaz A, Ilyas M. Correction of skeletal Class II using fixed functional appliances: A systematic review. Pak Orthod J. 2018;10(1):15-22. doi:10.4103/poj.poj_31_18 19. Pancherz H, Ruf S. Herbst treatment in adults: A review of clinical outcomes. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(6):469-477. doi:10.1007/s00056-017-0102-4 20. Jena AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of functional appliances in Class II correction. J Orthod Sci. 2018;7:9. doi:10.4103/jos.JOS_95_17 21. Gandedkar NH, Chng CK, Chan YH. PowerScope vs Forsus: A comparative cephalometric evaluation. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019;22(1):19-28. doi:10.1111/ocr.12261 22. Mandall NA, Cousley RR, DiBiase A. Adult Class II correction with Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(6):789-796. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.024 23. Perinetti G, Contardo L. Systematic review of fixed functional appliances for skeletal Class II treatment. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2017;18(1):25-32. doi:10.23804/ejpd.2017.18.01.05 24. Jena AK, Duggal R. Treatment of Class II Division 1 with PowerScope: A case report. Indian J Dent Sci. 2017;9(4):263-267. doi:10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_62_17 25. Ruf S, Pancherz H. Dentoskeletal effects and long-term stability of Herbst appliance. Semin Orthod. 2017;23(2):118-124. doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2017.03.007