Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Despite the known inuence of early treatment on the facial appearance of growing patients with skeletal Class III
malocclusion, few comparative reports on the long-term effects of different treatment regimens (1-phase vs
2-phase treatment) have been published. Uncertainty remains regarding the effects of early intervention on
jaw growth and its effectiveness and efciency in the long term. In this case report, we compared the effects
of early orthodontic intervention as the rst phase of a 2-phase treatment vs 1-phase xed appliance treatment
in identical twins over a period of 11 years. Facial and dental changes were recorded, and cephalometric super-
impositions were made at 4 time points. In spite of the different treatment approaches, both patients showed
identical dentofacial characteristics in the retention phase. Through this case report, we intended to clarify the
benets of undergoing 1-phase treatment against 2-phase treatment protocols for treating growing skeletal
Class III patients. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:e11-e22)
I
n the treatment of skeletal Class III growing patients, it light of mounting evidence that patients with a skeletal
has become a common practice to intervene early with Class III malocclusion show neither excessive mandibular
orthodontic or orthopedic treatment modalities as growth nor decient maxillary growth when compared
a part of a 2-phase treatment approach. This approach with Class I subjects at any growth stage.8 Therefore, the
is claimed to provide early and signicant improvement key question is what differences in jaw growth or
in the facial prole, require fewer surgical interventions treatment modality and outcome will there be between
in the future, and produce signicant psychosocial bene- patients who undergo 1-phase treatment and those who
ts for the patient as well as the parents.1-3 Although dont? This twin study allowed us to elucidate some
orthopedic forces that attempt to control or alter the benets of 1-phase treatment rather than waiting until
skeletal framework in skeletal Class III patients appear to the postadolescent period.
be remarkably effective in the initial stages, the results
are rarely maintained in the long term.4,5 Previously, we DIAGNOSIS AND ETIOLOGY
presented a clinical practice guideline for the treatment The patients, monozygotic twin sisters (Fig 2), were
of developing Class III malocclusions (Fig 1).6,7 However, referred to our department at Tohoku University, Sendai,
it is still difcult to decide whether a 2-phase treatment Japan, in 1996 when they were 9 years old for orthodon-
is actually better than a 1-phase treatment, especially in tic treatment of anterior crossbites. Their medical histo-
ries showed no systemic diseases or developmental
a
Chief orthodontist, skeletal anchorage system orthodontic center; clinical pro- anomalies. Not surprisingly, both twins had almost the
fessor, Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan. same orthodontic problems that included a prognathic
b
Lecturer and assistant researcher, Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Tohoku
University, Sendai, Japan. prole, mild mandibular asymmetry, Class III denture
c
Private practice, Nagoya, Japan. bases, deviation of mandibular midlines, and occlusal in-
d
Professor and head, Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Orthodon- terference of the incisors (Fig 3). Cephalometrically, their
tics, University of Connecticut, Farmington.
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or nancial interest in the prod- skeletofacial types were classied as Class III short-face
ucts or companies described in this article. types. The short-face tendency was more pronounced
Reprint requests to: Ravindra Nanda, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dental in Patient 2 (Fig 4).
Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030-1725;
e-mail, nanda@uchc.edu.
Submitted, April 2011; revised and accepted, May 2011. TREATMENT OBJECTIVES
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright 2012 by the American Association of Orthodontists. Class III short-face skeletofacial types are considered
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.05.023 to have a good prognosis, because their mild jaw
e11
e12 Sugawara et al
Fig 1. Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of a developing Class III malocclusion. Obs, Observation.
January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Sugawara et al e13
disharmony allows downward and backward rotation of The treatment objectives for Patient 1 were (1) phase
the mandible for correction of the anterior crossbite and 1 treatment involving dental correction of the anterior
deepbite and, therefore, are good candidates for a treat- crossbite, (2) growth monitoring and oral health care un-
ment plan involving 2 phases. This includes correction of til the postadolescent period, (3) xed appliance treat-
the anterior crossbite in the rst phase followed by a pe- ment for correction of the remaining orthodontic
riod of growth observation and then a second phase of problems, and (4) retention and long-term follow-up.
treatment with xed appliances. In light of our previous For Patient 2, the treatment objectives were (1) growth
discussion regarding early intervention on jaw growth, monitoring and oral health care until the postadolescent
the treatment objectives for Patient 1 were established period, (2) correction of the malocclusion with xed appli-
with the 2-phase treatment approach, whereas Patient ance treatment together with skeletal anchorage that
2 was managed with a 1-phase treatment concept. In- would allow us to circumvent the need for mandibular
formed consents were obtained for both patients from premolar extraction, and (3) retention and long-term
their parents. follow-up.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1
e14 Sugawara et al
Fig 4. Skeletofacial types developed from the cephalometric analyses for the twins. They were judged
as skeletal Class III short face. Note that the short-face tendency was more pronounced in Patient 2.
Fig 5. Timing intervals of the comparisons of treatment progress and results. MIP, Maxillary incisors
protractor; MBS, multi-bracketed system; SAS, skeletal anchorage system.
January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Sugawara et al e15
Fig 6. The twins at the initial time. Their dentofacial proles were almost identical.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1
e16 Sugawara et al
January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Sugawara et al e17
Fig 7. Signicant dentofacial differences were observed at the age of 10. After the rst phase of me-
chanics in Patient 1, her anterior crossbite was corrected after the aring of her maxillary incisors, the
forward displacement of the maxilla, and the clockwise rotation of the mandible. Consequently, her
skeletal facial type became much closer to a Class I average face.
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT PROGRESS AND 1. The initial examination was at age 9 years. Because
RESULTS IN THE TWINS they are monozygotic twins, it is no surprise that
The cephalometric and clinical comparisons of the even their dentitions were almost identical. Cephalo-
twin sisters took place at 4 time intervals (Fig 5). metrically, although Patient 2's short-face tendency
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1
e18 Sugawara et al
Fig 8. Skeletal differences between the sisters at 10 years old gradually disappeared during the puber-
tal growth period, and almost no difference was observed between their skeletal proles at age 16
years. The only difference was in the position of Patient 1's maxillary incisors; this was an orthodontic
effect from the facemask. Before 2nd Phase Tx, After the rst phase of treatment (ie, facemask ther-
apy); Before ortho. Tx, after growth observation only (no interceptive treatment was done).
was a little more pronounced than her sisters, their of early intervention for her. Cephalometric superim-
dentofacial proles were almost identical (Fig 6; position shows signicant dentofacial differences
Table I). between the sisters at this stage. Patient 1's crossbite
2. After Patient 1's rst phase of treatment (age, 10 was corrected by proclinatoin of her maxillary inci-
years), the clinical pictures clearly show the efciency sors, forward displacement of the maxilla, and
January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Sugawara et al e19
Fig 9. The twins in the retention period. Interestingly, although they underwent orthodontic treatment at
different times and with different modalities, their dentofacial morphologies and skeletofacial types at
the nal records were identical.
clockwise rotation of the mandible. This gave her an between their skeletal proles at 16 years. The
orthognathic facial prole compared with Patient 2 only difference perhaps was in the position of the
(Fig 7). maxillary incisors. The orthodontic effect of the
3. Before xed appliance treatment (age, 16 years), the facemask could still be seen on Patient 1's maxillary
skeletal differences between them at 10 years incisors (Fig 8).
gradually disappeared during the pubertal growth 4. During the retention period (age, 20 years), we
spurt, and almost no difference could be observed superimposed the twins nal records. Interestingly,
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1
e20 Sugawara et al
DISCUSSION
The advantage of using monozygotic twins in such
a comparative case report is that all differences in skeletal
growth, beyond the error of measurement, can be assumed
to be nongenetic and, therefore, the result of the environ-
ment.12,13 The most powerful oral environmental inuence
for the twins was the treatment itself. Mandibular growth
can be controlled with chincup therapy, by altering the
skeletal framework of growing Class III patients. Our
studies on the short-term and long-term effects of chin- Fig 10. A, Maxillary growth changes of the twins from
cup force indicated that the skeletal framework is greatly ages 9 to 18. Patient 1, who had the rst phase of treat-
improved during the initial stages of chincup therapy.4,5 ment, showed more maxillary growth than did Patient 2
However, these changes are rarely maintained during the until they turned 14, but no difference in maxillary lengths
pubertal growth period; when growth is over, any was observed at 18 years of age. B, Mandibular growth
treatment with the chincup appliance seldom alters the changes of the twins from ages 9 to 18. Obviously, there
was almost no difference between them in mandibular
inherited prognathic characteristics of Class III proles.
growth throughout the various growth periods. (Green
The second relevant area to review is jaw surgery. Our
and yellow lines represent the average growth changes
longitudinal studies have given us every reason to believe of untreated Class I and Class III Japanese teenagers
that surgical orthodontic treatment is the most effective from ages 9 to 14 years taken from longitudinal data.16-21)
modality to obtain a favorable prole and a stable occlu-
sion for severe adult skeletal Class III patients.14,15 Third, collect growth data from a patient to establish
we need to look back at what we knew then about jaw an individual growth data base for determining the
growth. Our group had conducted some longitudinal timing of orthognathic surgery, to continuously provide
studies with untreated Class III subjects.16-20 It was psychosocial care, and to professionally control oral
shown that those with skeletal Class III malocclusion hygiene during the long-term observation period.
showed neither excessive mandibular growth nor Nevertheless, when a patient is diagnosed with severe
decient maxillary growth when compared with Class I skeletal Class III, phase 1 treatment is recommended. Ac-
subjects at any growth stage. Meanwhile, patients with cording to the clinical practice guidelines that we have
severe skeletal Class III malocclusionie, those who are set for managing Class III malocclusions, we believed
indicated for future orthognathic surgeryreceive no that 2-phase treatment was the most benecial for
treatment for their dental malocclusion until the end growing patients diagnosed with mild to moderate Class
of the pubertal growth spurt. It is important to III jaw relationships, such as the twins.
January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Sugawara et al e21
We also looked at the maxillary growth changes that sults. This implies that early treatment had no im-
occurred from ages 9 to 18 years for the sisters. Patient 1, pact on jaw growth in the pubertal growth period.
who had 2-phase treatment, showed more maxillary 2. Although phase 1 treatment had no impact on jaw
growth than did Patient 2 until they turned 14. However, growth, it made the phase 2 treatment simpler
no difference in maxillary lengths was observed at 18 and easier. Therefore, 2-phase treatment might be
years of age. Consequently, early correction of the ante- more suited for mild to moderate Class III patients
rior crossbite had no impact on maxillary growth. Simi- than 1-phase treatment.
larly, there was almost no difference between the twins 3. The criteria for the selection of 1-phase or 2-phase
in their mandibular growth throughout the observation treatment depend entirely on the patients require-
period (Fig 10). ments. Because the biologic outcome is the same,
Recent clinical trials have suggested that in the long- the basis for opting for a particular treatment regi-
term the improvement in the skeletal malocclusion ob- men can be complicated. Cultural, environmental,
tained after a rst phase of treatment is not signicant and psychosocial factors need to be considered
when compared with a control group that had no growth more carefully.
modication treatment.21,22 It has also been suggested
that early intervention does not seem to confer
REFERENCES
a signicant psychosocial benet.3 The rst phase of
treatment for Patient 1 was effective, in that her dento- 1. Gebeile-Chauty S, Perret M, Schott AM, Akin JJ. Early treatment of
facial and functional problems were improved consider- Class III: a long-term cohort study. Orthod Fr 2010;81:245-54.
2. Kanno Z, Kim Y, Soma K. Early correction of a developing skeletal
ably, and were much better than her sisters. Signicant
Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2007;77:549-56.
differences were observed between their skeletal proles 3. Mandall N, DiBiase A, Littlewood S, Nute S, Stivaros N,
at age 10. Nevertheless, their skeletal differences gradu- McDowall R, et al. Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment
ally diminished during the pubertal growth period to the effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15-month
point that there was almost no difference in their skeletal follow-up. J Orthod 2010;37:149-61.
4. Sugawara J, Asano T, Endo N, Mitani H. Long-term effects of chin-
proles at age 16. It was obvious that the early correction
cap therapy on skeletal prole in mandibular prognathism. Am J
of the anterior crossbite did not make a positive impact Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:127-33.
on jaw growth. It seems that morphogenetic factors are 5. Mitani H, Sato K, Sugawara J. Growth of mandibular prongathism
still stronger and much more dominant than environ- after pubertal growth peak. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;
mental factors in the matter of jaw growth. 104:330-6.
Interestingly, despite the differences of treatment 6. Sugawara J, Asano T. The clinical practice guideline for treatment
of developing Class III malocclusion. In: Sugawara J, Asano T, ed-
timings and modalities, the twins achieved almost itors. Seeking a consensus for Class III treatment. Osaka, Japan:
identical dentofacial proles, and both had favorable Tokyo Rinsho Shuppan; 2002. p. 21-30.
occlusions at age 18. Patient 2 who was managed with 7. Sugawara J. Clinical practice guidelines for developing Class III
a 1-phase treatment, had to undergo treatment with malocclusion. In: Nanda R, editor. Biomechanics and esthetic strat-
egies in clinical orthodontics. St Louis: Elsevier; 2005. p. 211-42.
the skeletal anchorage system. The skeletal anchorage
8. Sugawara J, Mitani H. Facial growth of skeletal Class III malocclu-
system is a viable modality for distalizing mandibular sion and the effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial
molars.23,24 It enables en-masse movement of the adaptations to chincap therapy. Semin Orthod 1997;3:244-54.
mandibular buccal segments and even the entire man- 9. Skieller V, Bj ork A, Linde-Hansen T. Prediction of mandibular
dibular dentition with only minor surgery for placing growth rotation evaluated from a longitudinal implant sample.
Am J Orthod 1984;86:359-70.
the anchor plates at the anterior border of the mandib-
10. Bjork A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of mandible. A
ular ramus or the mandibular body. It is particularly ef- longitudinal cephalometric implantation study over a 25-year
fective for correcting Class III malocclusions, mandibular period. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 1984;16:55-108.
incisor crowding, and dental asymmetries, and rarely 11. Sugawara J. A bioefcient skeletal anchorage system. In: Nanda R,
requires the extraction of premolars. Without the editor. Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodon-
skeletal anchorage system, this twin study would not tics. St Louis: Elsevier; 2005. p. 295-309.
12. Babacan H, Oztruk F, Polat HB. Identical unerupted maxillary
have been possible, and such results could not have incisors in monozygotic twins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
been obtained. 2010;138:498-509.
13. Mew J. Facial changes in identical twins treated by different ortho-
dontic techniques. World J Orthod 2007;8:174-88.
CONCLUSIONS
14. Hin H, Sugawara J, Omori Y, Mitani H, Kawamura H. The study of
long-term dentofacial stability following two-jaw surgery. Jpn J
1. In spite of the differences in treatment timing and Jaw Deform 1994;4:15-25.
modalities (1-phase vs 2-phase treatment), both 15. Moldez MA, Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H, Kawamura H.
twin sisters achieved almost identical dentofacial re- Long-term dentofacial stability after bimaxillary surgery in skeletal
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1
e22 Sugawara et al
Class III open bite patients. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg 20. Bandai M, Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H. Craniofacial growth
2000;15:309-19. of mandibular prognathism in Japanese girls during pubertal
16. Sugawara J, Tsuchikawa T, Soya T, Mitani H. Late adolescent growth periodlongitudinal study from 9 to 14 years of age.
growth of skeletal Class III craniofaces in Japanese girlsaverage Orthod Waves 2000;59:77-89.
growth from 14 to 17 years of age based on longitudinal data. 21. ONeill K, Harkness M, Knight R. Ratings of prole attractiveness
J Jpn Orthod Soc 1983;42:399-408. after functional appliance treatments. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
17. Sato K, Sugawara J, Mitani H. Longitudinal study on average Orthop 2000;118:371-6.
craniofacial growth of skeletal Class III girls in the late adolescent 22. OBrien K, Macfarlane T, Wright J, Conboy F, Appelbe P, Birnie D,
periodpossibility of early orthognathic surgery. J Jpn Orthod Soc et al. Early treatment for Class II malocclusion and perceived
1989;48:21-8. improvements in facial prole. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
18. Sato K, Sugawara J, Mitani H. Longitudinal study on average 2009;135:580-5.
craniofacial growth of skeletal Class III males in late adolescent pe- 23. Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H, Nagasaka H, Kawamura H.
riodpossibility of early orthognathic surgery. J Jpn Orthod Soc Orthodontic treatment system for Class III malocclusion using a ti-
1992;51:25-30. tanium miniplate as an anchorage. Orthod Waves 1998;57:25-35.
19. Sakamoto M, Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H. Craniofacial 24. Sugawara J, Daimaruya T, Umemori M, Nagasaka H, Takahashi I,
growth of mandibular prognathism during pubertal growth period Kwamura H, et al. Distal movement of mandibular molars in adult
in Japanese boyslongitudinal study from 10 to 15 years of age. patients with the skeletal anchorage system. Am J Orthod Dento-
J Jpn Orthod Soc 1996;55:372-86. facial Orthop 2004;125:130-8.
January 2012 Vol 141 Issue 1 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics