CASE REPORT

One-phase vs 2-phase treatment for developing

Class III malocclusion: A comparison of identical
twins
Junji Sugawara,a Zaher Aymach,b Hiromichi Hin,c and Ravindra Nandad
Sendai and Nagoya, Japan, and Farmington, Conn

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 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
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)

n the treatment of skeletal Class III growing patients, it

has become a common practice to intervene early with
orthodontic or orthopedic treatment modalities as
a part of a 2-phase treatment approach. This approach
is claimed to provide early and signicant improvement
in the facial prole, require fewer surgical interventions
in the future, and produce signicant psychosocial benets for the patient as well as the parents.1-3 Although
orthopedic forces that attempt to control or alter the
skeletal framework in skeletal Class III patients appear to
be remarkably effective in the initial stages, the results
are rarely maintained in the long term.4,5 Previously, we
presented a clinical practice guideline for the treatment
of developing Class III malocclusions (Fig 1).6,7 However,
it is still difcult to decide whether a 2-phase treatment
is actually better than a 1-phase treatment, especially in
a
Chief orthodontist, skeletal anchorage system orthodontic center; clinical professor, Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
b
Lecturer and assistant researcher, Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Tohoku
University, Sendai, Japan.
c
Private practice, Nagoya, Japan.
d
Professor and head, Department of Craniofacial Sciences, Division of Orthodontics, University of Connecticut, Farmington.
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or nancial interest in the products or companies described in this article.
Reprint requests to: Ravindra Nanda, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dental
Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030-1725;
e-mail, nanda@uchc.edu.
Submitted, April 2011; revised and accepted, May 2011.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright 2012 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.05.023

light of mounting evidence that patients with a skeletal

Class III malocclusion show neither excessive mandibular
growth nor decient maxillary growth when compared
with Class I subjects at any growth stage.8 Therefore, the
key question is what differences in jaw growth or
treatment modality and outcome will there be between
patients who undergo 1-phase treatment and those who
dont? This twin study allowed us to elucidate some
benets of 1-phase treatment rather than waiting until
the postadolescent period.
DIAGNOSIS AND ETIOLOGY

The patients, monozygotic twin sisters (Fig 2), were

referred to our department at Tohoku University, Sendai,
Japan, in 1996 when they were 9 years old for orthodontic treatment of anterior crossbites. Their medical histories showed no systemic diseases or developmental
anomalies. Not surprisingly, both twins had almost the
same orthodontic problems that included a prognathic
prole, mild mandibular asymmetry, Class III denture
bases, deviation of mandibular midlines, and occlusal interference of the incisors (Fig 3). Cephalometrically, their
skeletofacial types were classied as Class III short-face
types. The short-face tendency was more pronounced
in Patient 2 (Fig 4).
TREATMENT OBJECTIVES

Class III short-face skeletofacial types are considered

to have a good prognosis, because their mild jaw
e11

Sugawara et al

e12

Fig 1. Clinical practice guideline for the treatment of a developing Class III malocclusion. Obs, Observation.

Fig 2. Pretreatment facial photographs of the twins.

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Sugawara et al

e13

Fig 3. Pretreatment intraoral photographs of the twins.

disharmony allows downward and backward rotation of

the mandible for correction of the anterior crossbite and
deepbite and, therefore, are good candidates for a treatment plan involving 2 phases. This includes correction of
the anterior crossbite in the rst phase followed by a period of growth observation and then a second phase of
treatment with xed appliances. In light of our previous
discussion regarding early intervention on jaw growth,
the treatment objectives for Patient 1 were established
with the 2-phase treatment approach, whereas Patient
2 was managed with a 1-phase treatment concept. Informed consents were obtained for both patients from
their parents.

The treatment objectives for Patient 1 were (1) phase

1 treatment involving dental correction of the anterior
crossbite, (2) growth monitoring and oral health care until the postadolescent period, (3) xed appliance treatment for correction of the remaining orthodontic
problems, and (4) retention and long-term follow-up.
For Patient 2, the treatment objectives were (1) growth
monitoring and oral health care until the postadolescent
period, (2) correction of the malocclusion with xed appliance treatment together with skeletal anchorage that
would allow us to circumvent the need for mandibular
premolar extraction, and (3) retention and long-term
follow-up.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

Sugawara et al

e14

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.

TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

Because the twins were skeletal Class III growing patients, growth modication treatments and functional appliances could be alternatives, but they were not included
with our options for the reasons previously mentioned.
Treatment alternatives in the postadolescent phase
could have included conventional camouage treatment

with a multi-bracketed system and premolar extractions

together with Class III elastics. This approach would improve the Class III occlusion, but it would undermine
esthetics, resulting in a more protruded chin and concave prole. Orthognathic surgery is also a viable option
for improving function, occlusion, and esthetics; however, our patients rejected surgery as an option.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

Sugawara et al

e16

Table I. Lateral cephalometric measurements (initial,

age of 9) with standard deviations from norms

SNA
SNB
ANB
Mandibular plane to SN
Gonial angle
U1 to SN
L1 to mandibular plane
L1 to U1
Wits
N-Me
N-ANS
ANS-Me

Patient 1
79.6 ( 0.4)
79.8 (1.3)
0.2 (0)
34.6 ( 0.8)
127.0 ( 0.5)
93.6 ( 1.7)
85.8 ( 1.4)
149.9 (2.8)
6.5 mm
105.1 mm ( 1.1)
47.5 mm ( 0.7)
58.2 mm ( 1.4)

Patient 2
79.0 ( 0.6)
80.0 (1.3)
1.0 (0)
35.4 ( 0.8)
125.2 ( 0.8)
89.4 ( 2.4)
79.1 ( 2.5)
156.1 (4.0)
7.7 mm
104.0 mm ( 1.4)
46.0 mm ( 1.3)
58.6 mm ( 1.3)

TREATMENT PROGRESS

Although a 1-phase treatment protocol was chosen

for Patient 2, there was no denitive treatment until
growth completion was conrmed. In Patient 1, the
rst phase of treatment began with facemask therapy
and 2 3 4 appliances. The aim was to correct her anterior crossbite dentally, not skeletally. The crossbite
and maxillary dental midline shift were corrected in 6
months.
At the age of 10 and after the rst phase of treatment, Patient 1's prognathic prole and dental malocclusion had improved signicantly. At the same time,
growth observation in Patient 2 showed that all her
orthodontic problems were exactly as they had been
at the initial examination. At age 13, both twins had
completed their permanent dentitions. Patient 1 had
maintained a positive overjet and overbite after the
rst phase of treatment, whereas Patient 2 showed
a slight improvement in her deepbite without orthodontic intervention. Both sisters had the possibility
of postpubertal growth of the mandible; therefore,
we decided to elongate the growth observation period
until 16 years of age as per our clinical practice guidelines.6,7
Before the second phase of treatment, Patient 1 still
had a prognathic prole, with some minor dental problems, particularly in the mandibular dentition. She had
a lateral crossbite on the right side, a mild Class III denture base, and mild mandibular incisor crowding. At the
same stage, Patient 2 demonstrated more severe orthodontic problems than her sister did at this age. She had
a skeletal Class III malocclusion with a short-face tendency, premature contact at the incisors, a dental midline shift, an anterior crossbite, severe crowding of the
maxillary anterior teeth, and retroclined mandibular
incisors.

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

At this stage, we superimposed the cephalometric radiographs from 9 and 16 years of age based on the natural reference structures suggested by Skieller et al9 and
Bj
ork and Skieller.10 Cephalometric tracings were made
in detail and superimposed carefully. In Patient 1, the
superimposition showed correction of the anterior crossbite, with a signicant amount of jaw growth. However,
the amount of jaw growth from 13 to 16 years of age was
negligible. In Patient 2, the cephalometric superimpositions showed that the maxilla and the mandible had signicant amounts of downward and forward growth
during the adolescent growth period. Her overbite had
improved over time.
To correct the rest of Patient 1's orthodontic problems, preadjusted xed appliance treatment was started,
and short Class III elastics were used to improve the Class
III denture bases and prevent proclination of the mandibular incisors during leveling and aligning. Treatment
for Patient 2 started with bonding brackets on the mandibular teeth and placing resin caps on the maxillary molars to open the bite for maxillary bonding. Open-coil
springs were used to make space and procline the maxillary incisors. Simultaneously, distalization of the mandibular posterior teeth was started with the skeletal
anchorage system, which uses an orthodontic miniplate
as a temporary anchorage device.11 Within several
months, her anterior crossbite was completely corrected,
and the distalized mandibular posterior teeth were retained with the help of ligature wires connected to the
miniplates.
After 12 months of active xed appliance treatment,
Patient 1's malocclusion was corrected. She obtained
a balanced prole, with adequate overjet and overbite,
proper anterior guidance, and rigid posterior intercuspation of the teeth. On the other hand, Patient 2's treatment with the skeletal anchorage system lasted 18
months. She also achieved an acceptable Class I occlusion and a satisfactory prole at debonding.
The dentofacial changes during the second phase of
treatment were minimal in Patient 1; only the uprighting
of the mandibular molars was observed. On the other
hand, the cephalometric superimposition in Patient 2
before and after treatment with the skeletal anchorage
system showed that her anterior crossbite was largely
corrected by proclination of the maxillary incisors and
clockwise rotation of the mandible, causing extrusion
of her maxillary and mandibular molars. The mandibular
molars were slightly distalized, and the retroclination of
her mandibular incisors was improved purely by lingual
root torque. After 30 months of retention, both twins
have maintained a good occlusion except for a minor relapse of the maxillary right rst premolar in Patient 2.
Overall, satisfactory results were achieved.

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 mechanics 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
RESULTS IN THE TWINS

1.

The cephalometric and clinical comparisons of the

twin sisters took place at 4 time intervals (Fig 5).

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

The initial examination was at age 9 years. Because

they are monozygotic twins, it is no surprise that
even their dentitions were almost identical. Cephalometrically, although Patient 2's short-face tendency

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

Sugawara et al

e18

Fig 8. Skeletal differences between the sisters at 10 years old gradually disappeared during the pubertal 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 therapy); Before ortho. Tx, after growth observation only (no interceptive treatment was done).

2.

was a little more pronounced than her sisters, their

dentofacial proles were almost identical (Fig 6;
Table I).
After Patient 1's rst phase of treatment (age, 10
years), the clinical pictures clearly show the efciency

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

of early intervention for her. Cephalometric superimposition shows signicant dentofacial differences
between the sisters at this stage. Patient 1's crossbite
was corrected by proclinatoin of her maxillary incisors, forward displacement of the maxilla, and

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.

3.

clockwise rotation of the mandible. This gave her an

orthognathic facial prole compared with Patient 2
(Fig 7).
Before xed appliance treatment (age, 16 years), the
skeletal differences between them at 10 years
gradually disappeared during the pubertal growth
spurt, and almost no difference could be observed

4.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

between their skeletal proles at 16 years. The

only difference perhaps was in the position of the
maxillary incisors. The orthodontic effect of the
facemask could still be seen on Patient 1's maxillary
incisors (Fig 8).
During the retention period (age, 20 years), we
superimposed the twins nal records. Interestingly,

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

Sugawara et al

e20

Table II. Lateral cephalometric measurements (nal,

age of 20) with standard deviations from norms

SNA
SNB
ANB
Mandibular plane to SN
Gonial angle
U1 to SN
L1 to mandibular plane
L1 to U1
Wits
N-Me
N-ANS
ANS-Me

Patient 1
81.1 ( 0.7)
78.8 ( 0.3)
2.3 ( 0.9)
37.1 (0.1)
122.0 ( 0.8)
107.8 (0.6)
91.7 (0.2)
123.4 ( 0.6)
1.4 mm
123.3 mm (1.0)
52.8 mm ( 0.8)
71.4 mm (2.8)

Patient 2
82.0 ( 0.4)
80.2 (0.3)
1.8 ( 1.2)
36.4 ( 0.1)
122.9 ( 0.6)
112.6 (1.5)
92.7 (0.4)
118.2 ( 1.2)
2.7 mm
121.8 mm (0.4)
52.3 mm ( 1.0)
70.4 mm (2.3)

although they underwent orthodontic treatment

with completely different treatment regimens
(1-phase vs 2-phase), their dentofacial morphologies were identical (Fig 9; Table II).
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 environment.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 chincup force indicated that the skeletal framework is greatly
improved during the initial stages of chincup therapy.4,5
However, these changes are rarely maintained during the
pubertal growth period; when growth is over, any
treatment with the chincup appliance seldom alters the
inherited prognathic characteristics of Class III proles.
The second relevant area to review is jaw surgery. Our
longitudinal studies have given us every reason to believe
that surgical orthodontic treatment is the most effective
modality to obtain a favorable prole and a stable occlusion for severe adult skeletal Class III patients.14,15 Third,
we need to look back at what we knew then about jaw
growth. Our group had conducted some longitudinal
studies with untreated Class III subjects.16-20 It was
shown that those with skeletal Class III malocclusion
showed neither excessive mandibular growth nor
decient maxillary growth when compared with Class I
subjects at any growth stage. Meanwhile, patients with
severe skeletal Class III malocclusionie, those who are
indicated for future orthognathic surgeryreceive no
treatment for their dental malocclusion until the end
of the pubertal growth spurt. It is important to

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

Fig 10. A, Maxillary growth changes of the twins from

ages 9 to 18. Patient 1, who had the rst phase of treatment, showed more maxillary growth than did Patient 2
until they turned 14, but no difference in maxillary lengths
was observed at 18 years of age. B, Mandibular growth
changes of the twins from ages 9 to 18. Obviously, there
was almost no difference between them in mandibular
growth throughout the various growth periods. (Green
and yellow lines represent the average growth changes
of untreated Class I and Class III Japanese teenagers
from ages 9 to 14 years taken from longitudinal data.16-21)

collect growth data from a patient to establish

an individual growth data base for determining the
timing of orthognathic surgery, to continuously provide
psychosocial care, and to professionally control oral
hygiene during the long-term observation period.
Nevertheless, when a patient is diagnosed with severe
skeletal Class III, phase 1 treatment is recommended. According to the clinical practice guidelines that we have
set for managing Class III malocclusions, we believed
that 2-phase treatment was the most benecial for
growing patients diagnosed with mild to moderate Class
III jaw relationships, such as the twins.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Sugawara et al

We also looked at the maxillary growth changes that

occurred from ages 9 to 18 years for the sisters. Patient 1,
who had 2-phase treatment, showed more maxillary
growth than did Patient 2 until they turned 14. However,
no difference in maxillary lengths was observed at 18
years of age. Consequently, early correction of the anterior crossbite had no impact on maxillary growth. Similarly, there was almost no difference between the twins
in their mandibular growth throughout the observation
period (Fig 10).
Recent clinical trials have suggested that in the longterm the improvement in the skeletal malocclusion obtained after a rst phase of treatment is not signicant
when compared with a control group that had no growth
modication treatment.21,22 It has also been suggested
that early intervention does not seem to confer
a signicant psychosocial benet.3 The rst phase of
treatment for Patient 1 was effective, in that her dentofacial and functional problems were improved considerably, and were much better than her sisters. Signicant
differences were observed between their skeletal proles
at age 10. Nevertheless, their skeletal differences gradually diminished during the pubertal growth period to the
point that there was almost no difference in their skeletal
proles at age 16. It was obvious that the early correction
of the anterior crossbite did not make a positive impact
on jaw growth. It seems that morphogenetic factors are
still stronger and much more dominant than environmental factors in the matter of jaw growth.
Interestingly, despite the differences of treatment
timings and modalities, the twins achieved almost
identical dentofacial proles, and both had favorable
occlusions at age 18. Patient 2 who was managed with
a 1-phase treatment, had to undergo treatment with
the skeletal anchorage system. The skeletal anchorage
system is a viable modality for distalizing mandibular
molars.23,24 It enables en-masse movement of the
mandibular buccal segments and even the entire mandibular dentition with only minor surgery for placing
the anchor plates at the anterior border of the mandibular ramus or the mandibular body. It is particularly effective for correcting Class III malocclusions, mandibular
incisor crowding, and dental asymmetries, and rarely
requires the extraction of premolars. Without the
skeletal anchorage system, this twin study would not
have been possible, and such results could not have
been obtained.
CONCLUSIONS

1.

In spite of the differences in treatment timing and

modalities (1-phase vs 2-phase treatment), both
twin sisters achieved almost identical dentofacial re-

e21

2.

3.

sults. This implies that early treatment had no impact on jaw growth in the pubertal growth period.
Although phase 1 treatment had no impact on jaw
growth, it made the phase 2 treatment simpler
and easier. Therefore, 2-phase treatment might be
more suited for mild to moderate Class III patients
than 1-phase treatment.
The criteria for the selection of 1-phase or 2-phase
treatment depend entirely on the patients requirements. Because the biologic outcome is the same,
the basis for opting for a particular treatment regimen can be complicated. Cultural, environmental,
and psychosocial factors need to be considered
more carefully.

REFERENCES
1. Gebeile-Chauty S, Perret M, Schott AM, Akin JJ. Early treatment of
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
Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2007;77:549-56.
3. Mandall N, DiBiase A, Littlewood S, Nute S, Stivaros N,
McDowall R, et al. Is early Class III protraction facemask treatment
effective? A multicentre, randomized, controlled trial: 15-month
follow-up. J Orthod 2010;37:149-61.
4. Sugawara J, Asano T, Endo N, Mitani H. Long-term effects of chincap therapy on skeletal prole in mandibular prognathism. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:127-33.
5. Mitani H, Sato K, Sugawara J. Growth of mandibular prongathism
after pubertal growth peak. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;
104:330-6.
6. Sugawara J, Asano T. The clinical practice guideline for treatment
of developing Class III malocclusion. In: Sugawara J, Asano T, editors. Seeking a consensus for Class III treatment. Osaka, Japan:
Tokyo Rinsho Shuppan; 2002. p. 21-30.
7. Sugawara J. Clinical practice guidelines for developing Class III
malocclusion. In: Nanda R, editor. Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics. St Louis: Elsevier; 2005. p. 211-42.
8. Sugawara J, Mitani H. Facial growth of skeletal Class III malocclusion and the effects, limitations, and long-term dentofacial
adaptations to chincap therapy. Semin Orthod 1997;3:244-54.
9. Skieller V, Bj
ork A, Linde-Hansen T. Prediction of mandibular
growth rotation evaluated from a longitudinal implant sample.
Am J Orthod 1984;86:359-70.
10. Bjork A, Skieller V. Normal and abnormal growth of mandible. A
longitudinal cephalometric implantation study over a 25-year
period. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 1984;16:55-108.
11. Sugawara J. A bioefcient skeletal anchorage system. In: Nanda R,
editor. Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics. St Louis: Elsevier; 2005. p. 295-309.
12. Babacan H, Oztruk F, Polat HB. Identical unerupted maxillary
incisors in monozygotic twins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2010;138:498-509.
13. Mew J. Facial changes in identical twins treated by different orthodontic techniques. World J Orthod 2007;8:174-88.
14. Hin H, Sugawara J, Omori Y, Mitani H, Kawamura H. The study of
long-term dentofacial stability following two-jaw surgery. Jpn J
Jaw Deform 1994;4:15-25.
15. Moldez MA, Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H, Kawamura H.
Long-term dentofacial stability after bimaxillary surgery in skeletal

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

Sugawara et al

e22

16.

17.

18.

19.

Class III open bite patients. Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg
2000;15:309-19.
Sugawara J, Tsuchikawa T, Soya T, Mitani H. Late adolescent
growth of skeletal Class III craniofaces in Japanese girlsaverage
growth from 14 to 17 years of age based on longitudinal data.
J Jpn Orthod Soc 1983;42:399-408.
Sato K, Sugawara J, Mitani H. Longitudinal study on average
craniofacial growth of skeletal Class III girls in the late adolescent
periodpossibility of early orthognathic surgery. J Jpn Orthod Soc
1989;48:21-8.
Sato K, Sugawara J, Mitani H. Longitudinal study on average
craniofacial growth of skeletal Class III males in late adolescent periodpossibility of early orthognathic surgery. J Jpn Orthod Soc
1992;51:25-30.
Sakamoto M, Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H. Craniofacial
growth of mandibular prognathism during pubertal growth period
in Japanese boyslongitudinal study from 10 to 15 years of age.
J Jpn Orthod Soc 1996;55:372-86.

January 2012  Vol 141  Issue 1

20. Bandai M, Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H. Craniofacial growth

of mandibular prognathism in Japanese girls during pubertal
growth periodlongitudinal study from 9 to 14 years of age.
Orthod Waves 2000;59:77-89.
21. ONeill K, Harkness M, Knight R. Ratings of prole attractiveness
after functional appliance treatments. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2000;118:371-6.
22. OBrien K, Macfarlane T, Wright J, Conboy F, Appelbe P, Birnie D,
et al. Early treatment for Class II malocclusion and perceived
improvements in facial prole. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2009;135:580-5.
23. Sugawara J, Umemori M, Mitani H, Nagasaka H, Kawamura H.
Orthodontic treatment system for Class III malocclusion using a titanium miniplate as an anchorage. Orthod Waves 1998;57:25-35.
24. Sugawara J, Daimaruya T, Umemori M, Nagasaka H, Takahashi I,
Kwamura H, et al. Distal movement of mandibular molars in adult
patients with the skeletal anchorage system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:130-8.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics