Early Orthodontic Treatment

International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) IJDSIR : Dental Publication Service Available Online at:www.ijdsir.com Volume – 8, Issue – 4, August – 2025, Page No. : 257 - 266 Corresponding Author: Dr. Shuchi Singh, ijdsir, Volume – 8 Issue - 4, Page No. : 257 - 266 Page257 ISSN: 2581-5989 PubMed - National Library of Medicine - ID: 101738774 Early Orthodontic Treatment 1Dr. Sweta Kaushik, Post Graduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rishiraj College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Opposite Raja Bhoj Airport, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, India-462036 2Dr. Shuchi Singh, Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rishiraj College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Opposite Raja Bhoj Airport, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, India-462036 3Dr. Neha Gupta, Post Graduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rishiraj College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Opposite Raja Bhoj Airport, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, India-462036 4Dr. Sanchit Bhargava, Post Graduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rishiraj College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Opposite Raja Bhoj Airport, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, India-462036 5Dr. Pranvi Sharma, Post Graduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rishiraj College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Opposite Raja Bhoj Airport, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, India-462036 6Dr. Varad Vaidya, Post Graduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rishiraj College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Opposite Raja Bhoj Airport, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, India-462036 Corresponding Author: Dr. Shuchi Singh, Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rishiraj College of Dental Science and Research Centre, Opposite Raja Bhoj Airport, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, India – 462036. Citation of this Article: Dr. Sweta Kaushik, Dr. Shuchi Singh, Dr. Neha Gupta, Dr. Sanchit Bhargava, Dr. Pranvi Sharma, Dr. Varad Vaidya, “Early Orthodontic Treatment”, IJDSIRAugust – 2025, Volume – 8, Issue – 4, P. No. 257 – 266. Copyright: © 2025, Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. This is an open access journal and article distributed under the terms of the creative common’s attribution non-commercial License. Which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given, and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. Type of Publication: Original Research Article Conflicts of Interest: Nil Abstract Early orthodontic treatment focuses on correcting developing skeletal, dentoalveolar, and muscular imbalances to create a favorable environment for normal facial growth. Initiating treatment during childhood can reduce the need for complex procedures like tooth extraction or jaw surgery in adolescence. Increased awareness among parents and professionals has led to growing interest in early intervention. While not all early treatments are effective, when properly timed and planned, they can address habits (e.g., thumb sucking), guide tooth eruption, maintain space, and correct crossbites. Early correction of functional issues can prevent them from developing into skeletal problems. However, poorly planned treatment may lead to prolonged care, higher costs, and patient fatigue. A thorough understanding of craniofacial development is essential for clinicians to deliver effective, efficient early Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) ©2025 IJDSIR, All Rights Reserved Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 Page258 interventions and reduce the severity of future orthodontic needs. Systematically planned interceptive treatment in the mixed dentition might contribute to a significant reduction in treatment need between the ages of 8 and 12 years. But in some instances early intervention does not change appreciably the environment for dentofacial development and permanent tooth eruption. In such instances, early treatment may serve only to increase time and cost and may result in patient burnout. So every effort must be made to time the treatment appropriately so as to maximize the treatment benefit in the shortest period of time. Keywords: Early Treatment, Early Intervention, Growing Patients, Mixed Dentition Tooth, Maximize Treatment Benefit Introduction The goal of early orthodontic treatment is to correct existing or developing skeletal, dentoalveolar, and muscular imbalances to create a favorable environment for proper facial and dental development.1 By initiating orthodontic and orthopedic therapy at a younger age, the need for complex treatments such as permanent tooth extractions or orthognathic surgery can often be minimized.[1-2] Over the last two decades, there has been growing interest in early intervention within the orthodontic community, driven by increased awareness of preventive care among both professionals and the general public. Parents are seeking earlier treatment for their children, influenced by a greater understanding of preventive dentistry and the desire to address issues before they worsen. Dental professionals, including generalists and specialists, are increasingly interested not just in correcting present problems but also in identifying and intercepting abnormal orofacial development early on.2-3 However, not all early orthodontic treatments result in favorable outcomes. In some cases, treatment begins without clearly defined goals, leading to unpredictable results, poor compliance, and dissatisfaction from parents, and treatment fatigue for both patients and clinicians.3 Therefore, early treatment must be wellplanned, with a deep understanding of craniofacial growth and dental arch development, to ensure that the most effective and efficient regimen is provided.4 Early intervention is more widely accepted today as a way to gain better control over craniofacial form and function during growth. Many complex orthodontic issues originate in skeletal or functional disturbances that worsen with time if not addressed early.4 While malocclusion is visible in the dentition, its underlying causes may lie in jaw structure or function. Delaying treatment may result in more severe skeletal problems that are harder to manage later.5 Examples of early treatment include correcting thumb-sucking habits, guiding erupting permanent teeth into proper bite positions, gaining space for incoming teeth, using space maintainers after early loss of primary teeth, and correcting crossbites.6-8 Addressing such issues early can prevent worsening malocclusions. The human skull consists of two separate jaws, and their size, shape, and position determine whether a patient will have a normal occlusion or a skeletal malocclusion. Jaw-related issues, though often overlooked compared to dental problems, are gaining attention in orthodontic research and practice.8 Continued study and intervention in this area are expected to expand.9 Early orthodontic treatment offers several benefits when properly applied. It can eliminate harmful habits and functional shifts that would otherwise disrupt normal growth and development. If these functional issues are not corrected in time, they may develop into skeletal problems requiring more Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) ©2025 IJDSIR, All Rights Reserved Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 Page259 intensive treatment in adolescence.8-9 Additionally, early treatment can prevent space loss, unwanted tooth movement, and misalignment of molars following premature loss of primary teeth. Timely intervention can ensure adequate arch space for permanent premolars and may reduce the complexity of future orthodontic procedures. In some cases, correcting protruding upper incisors early improves both aesthetics and selfconfidence while reducing the risk of dental trauma.10-12 Rationale of Early Orthodontic Treatment Robert E. Moyers and Michael L. Riolo emphasized that while some malocclusions can be prevented or intercepted, the terms "prevent" and "intercept" must be used carefully. Misuse of these terms can lead to unrealistic expectations about early orthodontic treatment.13-19 Not all malocclusions are preventable, but research shows about 25% can be intercepted effectively. Early treatment can reduce the complexity of future orthodontic procedures.20-31 Diphasic treatment— controlling skeletal growth early (Phase I) and aligning teeth later (Phase II)—is now seen as a more rational approach for some cases.33-37 Early orthopedic interventions can harness natural growth and eliminate causes of malocclusion before the eruption of permanent teeth. Although some appliances may appear simple, guiding craniofacial development is complex and demands a deep understanding of growth biology.38-39 Early Intervention of Transverse Dimension Crowding in adolescents can be managed through extraction, interproximal reduction, or expansion.[40] Early intervention during the mixed dentition period utilizes leeway space—about 4 mm in the maxilla and 5 mm in the mandible to minimize crowding, often aided by transpalatal or lingual arches.41-43 Tooth-size arch length discrepancies are classified into extraction (>6 mm crowding), non-extraction (<3 mm), and borderline cases.44 Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) is effective for correcting crossbites, increasing arch space, improving nasal airflow, and aiding maxillary canine eruption, although long-term stability is still under investigation. Crossbites, defined as malocclusion in the transverse plane, may be skeletal, dental, or functional. They are classified by location (anterior/posterior), nature, or malocclusion characteristics. Causes include retained deciduous teeth, narrow or collapsed arches, growth discrepancies, and habits like thumb sucking.44-45 Management varies by dentition stage  Primary dentition: Anterior crossbite may require tooth extraction; posterior crossbite is managed by grinding or expansion.  Early mixed dentition: Anterior crossbites may be corrected with removable appliances or space creation; posterior crossbites need over-expansion followed by passive retention.  Three main approaches to posterior crossbite in children: equilibration, arch expansion, and repositioning teeth. Historical appliances include the Coffin spring (1875), jack screw (1902), quad helix (1947), RPE (1960), and nickel-titanium expanders (1993). These devices vary in construction and application, commonly used to correct crossbites and associated habits.46 Early Intervention of Arch Length Deficiency Moorrees observed that dental arch length decreases from childhood to adulthood, leading to natural crowding over time. Studies by Sinclair, Little, and Riedel confirmed this trend in both treated and untreated patients.44 While Angle promoted arch preservation, clinicians like Tweed noted high relapse rates in non-extraction cases. Longterm studies showed that arch enlargement had poor stability and required lifetime retention.45-46 Serial extraction aimed to guide natural alignment but offered Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) ©2025 IJDSIR, All Rights Reserved Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 Page260 no significant long-term advantage over standard premolar extractions.47 Nance introduced the concept of “leeway space,” advocating its preservation using passive lingual arches rather than expansion. Dugoni’s review found that preserving leeway space led to superior postretention stability.48 Therefore, minimal intervention during mixed dentition, combined with leeway space management and lifetime retention, offers the most predictable outcomes.49 Early Intervention of Class II Malocclusion Treatment of Class II malocclusion depends on age, skeletal or dental components, clinician expertise, and patient preferences. It is not a disease but a variation in occlusion, so treatment approaches vary, with no universal protocol.46-47 Initial evaluation should determine if the issue is maxillary or mandibular, skeletal or dentoalveolar. Maxillary protrusion is often managed with facebows—cervical, high-pull, or straight-pull— based on vertical growth patterns. Maxillary dentoalveolar issues may involve incisor correction or full-arch retraction using headgears or utility arches. Mandibular dentoalveolar issues like crowding are treated with lip bumpers, utility arches, or Schwarz appliances.48 Skeletal mandibular retrusion, the most common issue, is addressed with functional appliances like the FR-2, bionator, Herbst, or twin block, selected based on facial height and severity. Timing, appliance choice, and patient compliance are crucial for long-term success and stability.49 Early Intervention of Class III Malocclusion Treatment of Class III malocclusion in the permanent dentition is challenging due to its strong skeletal basis, but early intervention during the deciduous or mixed dentition phases can be more effective.45-47 The FR-3 (Frankel appliance) is used for maxillary retrusion, while mandibular prognathism has traditionally been managed with orthopedic chin cups.48 More recently, the orthopedic facial mask developed by Delaire and Petit has gained popularity, especially for addressing maxillary retrusion, mandibular excess, and reduced lower facial height. The facial mask includes a forehead-chin framework, bonded maxillary splint, and elastics that apply forward and downward traction to the maxilla, encouraging its growth and repositioning.49-50 It is most effective when combined with rapid maxillary expansion and used before eruption of permanent molars. Chin cup therapy aims to limit mandibular growth by applying upward and backward force, which can alter mandibular development, especially during the first two years. However, discontinuation before growth completion may allow compensatory growth to reverse gains.52 The occipital pull chin cup is most common, used in mild to moderate cases during early mixed dentition, particularly when edge-to-edge incisal contact is possible.51-53 It restricts forward and downward mandibular growth and is helpful in short lower facial height cases.54 The pull direction can influence mandibular rotation, and soft tissue pressure may tip mandibular incisors backward. Chin cup therapy requires close monitoring to avoid TMD, with baseline joint records essential. While effective in guiding growth and improving Class III malocclusion when applied early, long-term success depends on timing, compliance, and careful case selection.55-56 Early Intervention of Deep Bite Deep dental overbite malocclusions are challenging to treat due to their high relapse potential, especially postretention. Class II division 2 cases, with flatter mandibular planes and acute gonial angles, are particularly prone to relapse. Wasilewsky (1985) reported a 44.9% relapse over 10 years, emphasizing the need for stable long-term strategies. Morphologically, deep bites Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) ©2025 IJDSIR, All Rights Reserved Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 Page261 often feature mandibular retrognathism, a short posterior ramus, a narrow mandibular base, and a downwardly tipped premaxilla. Retroclined incisors are common, but the issue is more skeletal than dental. Maxillary molar eruption initially helps correct the bite, but later intrusion and anterior shift of mandibular molars often lead to relapse. Stable outcomes are more likely when treatment enhances skeletal harmony—particularly forward mandibular positioning and vertical posterior development.46-47 Growth in posterior dentoalveolar height supports better long-term results. In dual occlusal level cases, marked by reduced posterior height and anterior overeruption, it is vital to diagnose the cause accurately. Over closed mandibular posture and excessive freeway space signal a need to increase posterior vertical dimension. Erupting posterior teeth— rather than allowing anterior migration—restores balance and helps prevent relapse, making early, growth-guided treatment more effective.53 Early Intervention of Open Bite Open bite malocclusion is often associated with supraerupted maxillary molars and incisors, which can retro position the mandible and increase lower anterior facial height. Early contributing factors include maxillary retrusion, counter clockwise rotation of the hard palate, mandibular clockwise rotation, and mandibular body bending at the antegonial notch. Functional habits like mouth breathing and thumb sucking promote molar over eruption by altering mandibular posture and increasing posterior vertical development.46 These muscular influences, particularly during rest or repetitive actions like thumb sucking, contribute to skeletal changes and increased nasomaxillary height. Early intervention is crucial during periods of active vertical growth. Treatment should focus on preventing posterior tooth eruption using methods like bite blocks or promoting molar intrusion with high-pull headgear to reduce or control posterior facial height. The "closing the drawbridge" concept emphasizes retro clining maxillary and mandibular incisors to close the anterior open bite.4647 High-pull headgear has been shown to effectively control vertical development of maxillary molars and prevent counter clockwise rotation of the palate. Simultaneous use of a mandibular lingual arch or bite block prevents lower molar eruption, allowing the mandible to rotate upward and forward for bite closure. Finally, open bites caused by posterior skeletal discrepancies differ from those due to tongue posture or size, where allowing anterior dentoalveolar development may be more appropriate.54 Indications of Early Orthodontic Treatment Early orthodontic treatment in the primary dentition is primarily indicated to remove barriers to normal facial and dental development and to maintain or restore oral function. Conditions warranting treatment include anterior/posterior crossbites, premature tooth loss with space issues, retained primary incisors, malpositioned teeth, and habits that may hinder growth. Some distocclusions and open bites due to habits can also be addressed, but treatment is contraindicated when outcomes are unpredictable, better delayed, or if the child lacks social maturity.50-53 During the transitional (mixed) dentition, treatment opportunities peak as malocclusions can be guided or intercepted efficiently. Indications include space loss due to premature tooth loss, tooth malpositions, supernumerary teeth, crossbites, deleterious habits, spacing or crowding, and various types of Class II malocclusions (functional, dental, or skeletal).53 Class III malocclusions and cases needing serial extraction may also be treated at this stage. Space management is a critical concern, often involving the control of molar drift Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) ©2025 IJDSIR, All Rights Reserved Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 Page262 and arch perimeter preservation.54 Treatment tools include functional appliances, orthopedic devices (e.g., headgear, expanders), bracketed appliances, and muscle training. The rationale for early Class II treatment focuses on skeletal, dental, and neuromuscular corrections during active growth phases. While early intervention can be effective, overreliance on one-phase treatment has led to confusion between early and comprehensive treatment goals.55-56 Discussion Early orthodontic treatment plays a vital role in guiding craniofacial development and addressing malocclusions before they progress into more complex skeletal and dental issues.1-3 Initiating treatment during the primary or mixed dentition phases allows clinicians to intercept or minimize developing imbalances—skeletal, dentoalveolar, or muscular—thereby reducing the need for extractions or orthognathic surgery later. Growing awareness of preventive care has prompted both dental professionals and parents to embrace early intervention more widely, particularly for conditions like thumbsucking habits, crossbites, arch length deficiencies, and space loss. When properly planned, early treatment can improve facial aesthetics, function, and even psychological well-being in children.9-13 Management of Class II malocclusions often benefits from diphasic treatment: early orthopedic correction followed by detailed dental alignment. Similarly, timely intervention for Class III malocclusions—using appliances like the Frankel FR-3, facial mask, or chin cup—can redirect unfavorable growth and enhance skeletal harmony. For deep bites and open bites, early diagnosis of skeletal discrepancies is crucial.46-54 Treatment tools such as bite blocks, headgear, and functional appliances not only correct dental positioning but also modify growth direction.56 The preservation of leeway space using passive devices like lingual arches, rather than relying on arch expansion or extraction, has shown better long-term stability. In the transverse dimension, rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and other early-phase appliances have effectively corrected crossbites and facilitated space for erupting teeth. However, indiscriminate early treatment without defined goals or proper case selection can lead to poor outcomes, fatigue, and non-compliance. Conclusion Histologic studies from the 1950s, such as Baume (1959), indicated that early orthopedic treatment of micrognathia could stimulate condylar growth and reposition the glenoid fossa. However, later observations of spontaneous correction raised doubts about whether these changes were treatment-induced or part of natural growth. Functional appliances produce significant sagittal and facial changes, though attributing these solely to “condylar stimulation” oversimplifies the process. Multiple interacting factors—growth patterns, neuromuscular influences, appliance type, and patient compliance—contribute to treatment outcomes. While the exact mechanisms remain unclear, consistent sagittal improvements suggest real skeletal change. High-quality evidence, including Cochrane reviews, supports early orthodontic intervention for Class II and III cases, both for functional correction and psychological benefits. Timing should be based on the orthodontist’s clinical judgment in collaboration with the patient and parents. References 1. Moyers, R.E., 1988. Handbook of Orthodontics. 4th ed. Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc., pp. 343– 348. 2. McNamara, J.A. Jr. and Brudon, W.L., 1993. Orthodontic and Orthopedic Treatment in the Mixed Dentition. Needham Press, pp. 95–117. Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) ©2025 IJDSIR, All Rights Reserved Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 Page263 3. Carlson, D.S., 2002. Biological rationale for early treatment of dentofacial deformities. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 121(6), pp. 554–558. 4. Subtelny, J.D., 2000. Early Orthodontic Treatment. Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc., pp. 3–40. 5. Tulloch, J.F., 1997. The effect of early intervention on skeletal pattern in Class II malocclusion: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 111(4), pp. 391–400. 6. Ghafari, J., Shofer, F.S., Hunt, J.U., Markowitz, D.L. and Laster, L.L., 1998. Headgear versus function regulator in the early treatment of Class II, Division 1 malocclusion: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 113(1), pp. 51–61. 7. Tulloch, J.F.C., Phillips, C. and Proffit, W.F., 1998. Benefits of early Class II treatment – Progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 113(1), pp. 62–72. 8. Lund, D.I. and Sandler, P.J., 1998. The effects of Twin Block Appliance: A prospective controlled study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 113(1), pp. 104–110. 9. Illing, H.M., Morris, D.O. and Lee, R.T., 1998. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I – the hard tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics, 20(5), pp. 501–516. 10. Sergl, H.G. and Zentner, A., 1998. A comparative assessment of acceptance of different types of functional appliances. European Journal of Orthodontics, 20(5), pp. 517–524. 11. Morris, D.O., Illing, H.M. and Lee, R.T., 1998. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part II – the soft tissues. European Journal of Orthodontics, 20(6), pp. 663–684. 12. Ruf, S. and Pancherz, H., 1999. TMJ remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: A prospective longitudinal MRI and cephalometric radiographic investigation. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 115(6), pp. 607–618. 13. Ruf, S. and Pancherz, H., 2000. Does bite-jumping damage the TMJ? A prospective longitudinal clinical and MRI study of Herbst patients. Angle Orthodontist, 70(3), pp. 183–199. 14. Voudouris, J.C. and Kuftinec, M.M., 2000. Improved clinical use of Twin-Block and Herbst as a result of radiating viscoelastic tissue forces on the condyle and fossa in treatment and long term retention: Growth relativity. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 117(3), pp. 247–266. 15. Klocke, A., Nanda, R.S. and Ghosh, J., 2000. Muscle activity with the mandibular lip bumper. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 117(4), pp. 384–390. 16. Hiyama, S., Ono, T., Ishiwata, Y., Kuroda, T. and McNamara, J.A., 2000. Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations following mandibular forward positioning induced by the Herbst appliance. Angle Orthodontist, 70(6), pp. 442–453. 17. Leung, D.K. and Hägg, U., 2001. An electromyographic investigation of the first six months of progressive mandibular advancement of the Herbst appliance in adolescents. Angle Orthodontist, 71(3), pp. 177–184. 18. Rabie, A.B.M., Zhao, Z., Shen, G., Hägg, U. and Robinson, W., 2001. Osteogenesis in the glenoid fossa in response to mandibular advancement. Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) ©2025 IJDSIR, All Rights Reserved Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 Page264 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 119(4), pp. 390–400. 19. Rabie, A.B.M., Leung, F.Y.C., Chayanupatkul, A. and Hägg, U., 2002. The correlation between neovascularization and bone formation in the condyle during forward mandibular positioning. Angle Orthodontist, 72(5), pp. 431–438. 20. Pancherz, H., 2002. Treatment timing and outcome. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 121(6), p. 559. 21. Rabie, A.B.M., She, T.T. and Hägg, U., 2003. Functional appliance therapy accelerates and enhances condylar growth. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 123(1), pp. 40–48. 22. Kulbersh, V.P., Berger, J.L., Chermak, D.S., Kaczynski, R., Simon, E.S. and Haerian, A., 2003. Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance on patients with Class II malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 123(3), pp.286-295. 23. Cevidanes, L.H.S., Franco, A.A., Scanavini, M.A., Vigorito, J.W., Enlow, D.H. and Proffit, W.R., 2003. Clinical outcomes of Fränkel appliance therapy assessed with a counterpart analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 123(4), pp.379-387. 24. Voudouris, J.C., Woodside, D.G., Altuna, G., Kuftinec, M.M., Angelopoulos, G. and Bourque, P.J., 2003. Condyle-Fossa modifications and muscle interactions during Herbst Treatment, Part 1. New technological methods. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 123(6), pp.604-613. 25. Voudouris, J.C., Woodside, D.G., Altuna, G., Angelopoulos, G., Bourque, P.J., Lacouture, C.Y. and Kuftinec, M.M., 2003. Condyle-Fossa modification and muscle interactions during Herbst treatment, Part 2. Results and Conclusions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 124(1), pp.13-29. 26. Faltin, K., Faltin, R., Baccetti, T., Franchi, L., Ghiozzi, B. and McNamara, J.A., 2003. Long term effects and treatment timing for Bionator therapy. Angle Orthodontist, 73(3), pp.221-230. 27. Pancherz, H. and Fischer, S., 2003. Amount and direction of TMJ growth changes in Herbst treatment: A cephalometric long term investigation. Angle Orthodontist, 73, pp.493-501. 28. Du, X. and Hägg, U., 2003. Muscular adaptation to gradual advancement of the mandible. Angle Orthodontist, 73, pp.525-531. 29. O’Brien, K., Wright, J., Conboy, F., Sanjre, Y.W., Mandall, N. and Chadwick, S., 2003. Effectiveness of treatment for class II malocclusion with the Herbst or Twin Block Appliance: A Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 124(2), pp.128-137. 30. Rabie, A.B.M., Tsai, M.J.M., Hägg, U., Du, X. and Chou, B.W., 2003. Correlation of replicating cells and osteogenesis in the condyle during stepwise advancement. Angle Orthodontist, 73, pp.457-465. 31. Tulloch, J.F.C., Proffit, W.R. and Phillips, C., 2004. Outcomes in a 2-phase randomized clinical trial of early Class II treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 125(6), pp.657-667. 32. Schaefer, A.T., McNamara, J.A., Franchi, L. and Baccetti, T., 2004. A cephalometric comparison of treatment with the Twin-block and stainless steel crown Herbst appliances followed by fixed appliance Dr. Shuchi Singh, et al. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR) ©2025 IJDSIR, All Rights Reserved Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 Page265 therapy. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 126(1), pp.7-15. 33. Negan, P.W., Hagg, U., Yiu, C. and Wei, S.H.Y., 1997. Treatment Response and Long-Term Dentofacial Adaptations to Maxillary Expansion and Protraction. Seminars in Orthodontics, 3, pp.255-264. 34. Deguchi, T. and McNamara, J.A., 1999. Craniofacial adaptations induced by chin cup therapy in Class III patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 115(2), pp.175-182. 35. Franchi, L., Baccetti, T. and McNamara, J.A., 2004. Post pubertal assessment of treatment timing for maxillary expansion and protraction therapy followed by fixed appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 126(11), pp.555-568. 36. Cozza, P., Marino, A. and Mucedero, M.N., 2004. An orthodontic approach to the treatment of Class III malocclusions in the early mixed dentition. European Journal of Orthodontics, 26, pp.191-199. 37. Iida, Y., Deguchi, T. Sr and Kageyama, T., 2005. Chin Cup Treatment Outcomes in Skeletal Class III DolichoVersus Nondolichofacial Patients. Angle Orthodontist, 75, pp.502-509. 38. McNamara, J.A., 2002. Early intervention in the transverse Dimension. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 121(6), pp.572-574. 39. Proffit, W.R. and Fields, H.W., 2007. Orthodontic treatment planning: limitations, controversies and special problems. In Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby, pp.284. 40. Little, R.M., 2002. Stability and relapse: Early treatment of arch Length deficiency. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 121(6), pp.578-581. 41. Little, R., 1999. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment. Seminars in Orthodontics, 5, pp.191-204. 42. Sinclair, P. and Little, R., 1983. Maturation of untreated normal occlusions. American Journal of Orthodontics, 83(2), pp.114-123. 43. Little, R. and Riedel, R., 1989. Post retention evaluation of stability and relapse: mandibular arches with generalized spacing. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 95(1), pp.37-41. 44. Little, R., Riedel, R. and Stein, A., 1990. Mandibular arch length increase during the mixed dentition: post retention evaluation of stability and relapse. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 97(5), pp.393-404. 45. Little, R., Riedel, R. and Artun, J., 1988. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years post retention. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 93(6), pp.423–428. 46. Nance, H., 1947. The limitations of orthodontic treatment. I. Mixed dentition diagnosis and treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery, 33, pp.177–223. 47. Dugoni, S., Lee, J., Varela, J. and Dugoni, A., 1995. Early mixed dentition treatment: post retention evaluation of stability and relapse. Angle Orthodontist, 65, pp.311–320. 48. McNamara, J.A., Brudon, W.L. and Kokich, V.G., 1999. Textbook of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Needham Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 49. Mitanni, H., 2002. Early application of chincap therapy to skeletal Class III malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 121(6), pp.584–585.