Debunking the Two-phase Treatment Myth

Introduction The world of orthodontics has its fair share of debates. One such topic is that of one-phase versus two-phase treatment, or early versus late therapy, as some like to call it. To put it simply, a one-phase therapy is finished in a single stage, whereas the latter is carried out in two stages, throughout two different age periods. Aims and Objectives To assess and discuss the current notion of one-phase and two-phase therapy in the management of Class II malocclusion, along with their efficacy, long-term stability, cost effectiveness and patient compliance, as demonstrated by years of research. Methods All existing literature related to two-phase treatment and late single-phase treatment in Class II malocclusion cases were reviewed, analyzing the respective benefits and drawbacks. Results All the evidence advocates that two-phase treatment does not outperform one-phase treatment in skeletal correction, treatment stability, or reducing treatment complexity in Class II malocclusion. Early intervention can be beneficial in a few scenarios, but it typically prolongs treatment duration, increases costs, while reducing patient compliance. Conclusion This review indicates the need for re-evaluation of early two-phase treatment in Class II malocclusion. Rather than a generalized preference for early intervention, customised treatment planning is more desirable.