Early orthodontic treatment: what are the imperatives?

BACKGROUND Then authors provide a critical review of the issues involved in determining the appropriate timing of orthodontic treatment. Both single- and two-phase treatments are discussed and guidelines are offered to assist in formulating treatment plans. OVERVIEW In providing orthodontic care for pediatric patients, clinicians often question whether to begin treatment early--during the primary or early-transitional dentition--or wait until all or most of the permanent teeth are present. The authors review the most current literature (from 1991 to 1999), including several recently completed and ongoing randomized clinical trials, to critically evaluate the effectiveness of each approach. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The controversy surrounding early vs. late orthodontic treatment is often confusing to the dental community. This article reviews both sides of the issue for orthodontic treatment of Class II and III malocclusions, as well as for the management of Class I crowding and problems in the transverse dimension. Early orthodontic treatment is effective and desirable in specific situations. However, the evidence is equally compelling that such an approach is not indicated in many cases for which later, single-phase treatment is more effective. Therefore, clinicians must decide, on a case-by-case basis, when to provide orthodontic treatment. For many patients, delaying treatment until later in their dental and skeletal development may be advisable.

[1]  S. McGorray,et al.  Orthodontists' Perceptions of the Impact of Phase 1 Treatment for Class II Malocclusion on Phase 2 Needs , 1999, Journal of dental research.

[2]  Bill Mcsweeney.  Security, Identity and Interests: Early stages of development , 1999 .

[3]  L. Johnston.  Growth and the Class II patient: rendering unto Caesar. , 1998, Seminars in orthodontics.

[4]  P. Sinclair,et al.  Cephalometric effects of face mask/expansion therapy in Class III children: a comparison of three age groups. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[5]  S. E. Bisharaa,et al.  Held by the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics in Quebec City, Canada on July 13-17, 1997☆☆☆★★★ , 1998 .

[6]  J. Ghafaria,et al.  Headgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: A randomized clinical trial , 1998 .

[7]  W. Proffit,et al.  Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  C. Garvan,et al.  Anteroposterior skeletal and dental changes after early Class II treatment with bionators and headgear. , 1998, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[9]  L. Johnston.  Functional appliances: a mortgage on mandibular position. , 1996, Australian orthodontic journal.

[10]  A. Gianelly.  Leeway space and the resolution of crowding in the mixed dentition. , 1995, Seminars in orthodontics.

[11]  J. McNamara,et al.  Maxillary adaptation to expansion in the mixed dentition. , 1995, Seminars in orthodontics.

[12]  L. Johnston,et al.  A comparison of one-stage and two-stage nonextraction alternatives in matched Class II samples. , 1995, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[13]  L. Fishman,et al.  Maturational evaluation of ossification of the midpalatal suture. , 1994, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[14]  P. Vig,et al.  Clinical research as the basis of clinical practice , 1991 .

[15]  P. Pirttiniemi,et al.  Relationship between craniofacial and condyle path asymmetry in unilateral cross-bite patients. , 1990, European journal of orthodontics.