Objective. Assessing the relevance of early orthodontic treatment when maxillary proclination is diagnosed in a young child during a consultation at the dentist’s, the pediatric dentist’s or the orthodontist’s, for example during oral examinations recommended by social security.
Method. In a review of literature illustrated with clinical cases, authors have shown that scientific evidence cannot highlight any advantage due to this type of treatment on the final orthodontic result. However, the scientific community acknowledges that these treatments allow to decrease the incidence of trauma aftereffects on anterior teeth. Nevertheless, the necessary individualization of the orthodontic diagnosis can incite the practitioner to choose other strategies which might be risky, especially from a legal point of view.
Conclusion. Early treatments of maxillary proclination are relevant because they can decrease trauma aftereffects on anterior teeth. However, in the light of the current jurisprudence, practitioners should not be held liable for not starting this type of treatment, provided that the therapeutic decision was taken in agreement with the patient and his/her legal representative.