Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Jan;141(1):e11-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.05.023.
Despite the known influence 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 efficiency in the long term. In this case report, we compared the effects of early orthodontic intervention as the first phase of a 2-phase treatment vs 1-phase fixed appliance treatment in identical twins over a period of 11 years. Facial and dental changes were recorded, and cephalometric superimpositions 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 benefits of undergoing 1-phase treatment against 2-phase treatment protocols for treating growing skeletal Class III patients.
尽管早期治疗对生长发育期骨骼 III 类错颌患者的面部外观有明显影响，但关于不同治疗方案（1 期治疗与 2 期治疗）长期效果的比较报告却很少。对于早期干预对颌骨生长的影响及其长期有效性和效率仍存在不确定性。在本病例报告中，我们比较了在 11 年期间，作为 2 期治疗的第一阶段的早期正畸干预与 1 期固定矫治器治疗对同卵双胞胎的影响。记录了面部和牙齿的变化，并在 4 个时间点进行了头颅侧位片重叠。尽管治疗方法不同，但在保持期，两名患者均表现出相同的牙颌面特征。通过本病例报告，我们旨在阐明对生长发育期骨骼 III 类患者进行 1 期治疗与 2 期治疗方案相比的优势。
