Sibling Rivalry by Dr. Nick Riccio

Sibling RivalryBraces versus aligners

by Dr. Nick Riccio


Early in training, a passing joke about treating siblings as a split comparison case was met with a swift and memorable correction: a reminder that patients and families deserve thoughtful, individualized care, not experiments. That experience stuck, and it shaped the spirit behind this case.

This case features a set of siblings from the same family. The goal is not to preach dogma but to explore the nuance and excitement of clinical decision-making in orthodontics. The hope is that this case sparks genuine reflection—and maybe a little healthy debate.

When the siblings, Patient A and Patient B, presented on the same day, the open bites in both cases immediately commanded attention. This was not a situation that invited a casual approach; the clinical findings, combined with a family that was clearly engaged and had high expectations, made it clear that every decision would need to be deliberate and well-reasoned.

So, are you ready to spar? Braces versus aligners! Let’s compare Patient A and Patient B.

Diagnostic overview
Both patients presented with hyperdivergent Class III skeletal patterns and 5 mm anterior open bites categorized as Y-type. While their skeletal foundations were similar, differences in incisor position, arch form development, and crowding influenced appliance selection. (Figs. 1–6)

Patient A
  • Class III skeletal pattern (hyperdivergent)
  • Class III dental relationship
  • Constricted dental arch forms
  • 5 mm anterior open bite (Y-type)
  • Reverse curve of Spee with intruded lower incisors
  • Mild maxillary spacing
  • Mild mandibular crowding
  • Normal airway findings
  • Tongue thrust habit
Patient B
  • Class III skeletal pattern (hyperdivergent)
  • Class III dental relationship
  • Constricted dental arch forms
  • 5 mm anterior open bite (Y-type)
  • Intruded maxillary incisors with inadequate incisal display
  • Moderate maxillary and mandibular crowding
  • Constricted upper airway findings
  • Tongue thrust habit
Before we get into the treatment plans, take a moment to review the diagnostic summaries above and consider how you would approach each case.

From my perspective, the overall diagnoses were remarkably similar. The primary challenge in both cases was correction of the 5 mm anterior open bite, which was categorized as a Y-type pattern.

The differences that mattered most were not dramatic, but they were clinically meaningful. Those nuances ultimately drove my decision to treat one case with aligners and the other with fixed appliances, despite how bold that felt at the time.
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 1: Initial records (Patient A)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 2: Initial records (Patient B)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 3: Initial records (Patient A)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 4: Initial records (Patient B)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 5: Initial records (Patient A)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 6: Initial records (Patient B)

The case for aligners for Patient A:
  1. Reverse curve of Spee with intruded L3-3: Extruding the lower incisors with aligners felt like the more predictable approach to closing the Y-type open bite, and a notable advantage here was being able to maintain the existing incisal display on the upper, since upper incisors are notoriously difficult to extrude with aligners. Limiting posterior extrusion was further supported by the intermaxillary plastic.
  2. Mild upper spacing plus normal airways: Aligners were fully compatible with this case, as there were no significant concerns with achieving good arch form development and coordination.
  3. Patient preference as a motivating factor: Patient preference alone cannot drive appliance selection, but Patient A had a strong desire to avoid braces, and that became a source of motivation to approach this case boldly with aligners. When you can offer a treatment modality the patient genuinely prefers, that goodwill carries real weight—especially in a demanding case where high compliance is essential to success.
The case for braces for Patient B:
  1. Inadequate incisal display with intruded U3-3: Extruding the upper incisors felt more predictable with braces, leveraging differential anterior-posterior bracket positioning, supported by bite-closing elastics and posterior bite blocks to help mitigate unwanted posterior extrusion.
  2. More severe crowding with constricted airways: Maximizing dentoalveolar expansion on the upper arch was a priority, and braces with Damon mechanics felt like the best path to achieve that. The facially and gingivally ectopic canines were engaged intentionally while open coiling around the initially unengaged upper laterals helped expand arch form maximally. Triangle bite-closing elastics from U3 to L3/L4 were used during initial leveling and aligning; once space allowed engagement of the upper laterals in a broader arch form, the approach transitioned to box-type anterior bite-closing elastics—a high-compliance ask that Patient B met admirably.
  3. Competitive swimming as a contributing factor: Again, this alone did not drive the decision, but the documented effects of prolonged aligner wear in competitive swimmers, including discoloration and erosion, were a meaningful clinical consideration. Braces were the more appropriate choice given Patient B’s training demands, and fortunately, Patient B was receptive to this recommendation.
With full buy-in from both patients and their families, treatment was underway—two different approaches, one shared goal: correcting a challenging anterior open bite. (Figs. 7–12)

The progress for each patient was impressive and is a testament to their compliance with intermaxillary elastics, aligner wear, braces maintenance, and their commitment to the process. When all was said and done, the “fight” of braces versus aligners may well have ended in a draw, but take a look at their final records and judge for yourself. (Figs. 13–16)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 7: Progress records (Patient A)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 8: Progress records (Patient B)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 9: Progress records (Patient A)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 10: Progress records (Patient B)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 11: Progress records (Patient A)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 12: Progress records (Patient B)

Post-treatment analysis
This case comparison taught me some meaningful things. Appliance choice, let alone brand, does not replace the importance of proper diagnosis. Genetics and environmental factors play a role in choosing treatment options, but there are often additional considerations that can tip the scales in either direction. Dogma fails us, while flexibility serves our patients. The goal is to be careful yet bold, respectful yet open to the lighter side of this work. In a world increasingly shaped by AI, it is more important and more rewarding than ever to engage our uniquely trained orthodontic minds with challenging and nuanced cases like these, where the ultimate beneficiaries are our patients, as it should be. As the saying goes, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players,” and orthodontics is no exception.

To keep that motivation alive, Patient A and Patient B’s final records are prominently displayed alongside other landmark cases in the office. The experience of working with both of them was genuinely rewarding, and it is a reminder of why cases like these—challenging, nuanced, and deeply collaborative—are among the most fulfilling in practice. 
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 13: Final records (Patient A)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 14: Final records (Patient B)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 15: Final records (Patient A)
Sibling Rivalry
Fig. 16: Final records (Patient B)


Author Bio
Dr. Nick Riccio Dr. Nick Riccio is a board-certified orthodontist who trained at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx. He co-owns and operates a dual-service pedo-ortho practice in Hinsdale, Illinois, with his dual board-certified wife, Dr. Susan Blair. He and Susan were honored with the distinction of “40 under 40” by Incisal Edge magazine. Riccio cofounded and runs a de novo study club called “Masterminds,” exploring a wide range of topics from clinical innovations to practice management to health and wellness topics.


Sponsors
Townie® Poll
Historically, which area has the most turnover in your office?
  
The Orthotown Team, Farran Media Support
Phone: +1-480-445-9710
Email: support@orthotown.com
©2026 Orthotown, a division of Farran Media • All Rights Reserved
9633 S. 48th Street Suite 200 • Phoenix, AZ 85044 • Phone:+1-480-598-0001 • Fax:+1-480-598-3450