The Effect of Premolar Extractions on Incisor Position and Soft Tissue Profile in Patients with Class II, Division 1 Malocclusion

Overview

Journal J Orofac Orthop

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2009 Mar 27

PMID 19322531

Citations 10

Authors

Catharina Weyrich

Jorg A Lisson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to establish whether and how premolar extraction affects the soft tissue profile and incisor inclination in patients with Angle Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. Our primary intention was to identify differences between patients who had four premolars extracted and those who had only two upper premolars removed during camouflage treatment. Our control group consisted of patients with an Angle Class II, Division 1 treated without extractions.

Materials And Methods: These patients' lateral cephalograms were cephalometrically analyzed before and after treatment. Computer-assisted analysis of the data using Onyx Ceph was followed by a single-factor variance analysis (one-way ANOVA).

Results: Our results demonstrate that patients who have undergone camouflage treatment exhibit significantly more retruded upper central incisors than those with extractions in both jaws, and that their upper incisors are highly significantly more retruded and their mandibles significantly more retrognathic than those of patients who have not undergone extraction therapy.

Conclusion: We did not observe that the patients' profiles did become worse after extraction therapy.

Citing Articles

Effects of premolar extraction and orthodontic treatment in adolescents - a retrospective cephalometric study.

Ekstam M, Sonesson M, Hellen-Halme K Acta Odontol Scand. 2023; 83:92-100.

PMID: 37830312 PMC: 11302624. DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2023.2267145.

Treatment effects and lip profile changes following premolars extraction treatment vs fixed functional treatment in Class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Kochar G, Londhe S, Chopra S, Kohli S, Kohli V, Kamboj A Dental Press J Orthod. 2023; 28(2):e232140.

PMID: 37222338 PMC: 10202449. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.28.2.e232140.oar.

Extraction vs. Nonextraction on Soft-Tissue Profile Change in Patients with Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Moon S, Mohamed A, He Y, Dong W, Yaosen C, Yang Y Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021:7751516.

PMID: 34589550 PMC: 8476252. DOI: 10.1155/2021/7751516.

Comparison of dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of Class II malocclusion treatment with Jones Jig appliance and with maxillary first premolar extractions.

Pupulim D, Henriques J, Janson G, Henriques F, Freitas K, Garib D Dental Press J Orthod. 2019; 24(2):56-65.

PMID: 31116288 PMC: 6526763. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.24.2.056-065.oar.

Combined Use of Retraction and Torque Arch with Mini-Screws: A Cephalometric Study.

Amasyali M, Sabuncuoglu F, Karacay S, Dogru M, Altug H Turk J Orthod. 2018; 31(1):1-6.

PMID: 30112506 PMC: 6007689. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2018.17031.

References

Kocadereli I . Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(1):67-72. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.125235. View

Chen Y, Chen S, Chang H, Chen K . Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70(5):387-92. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0387:COLIIT>2.0.CO;2. View

Stephens C, Boley J, Behrents R, Alexander R, Buschang P . Long-term profile changes in extraction and nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(4):450-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.034. View

Demir A, Uysal T, Sari Z, Basciftci F . Effects of camouflage treatment on dentofacial structures in Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathic patients. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27(5):524-31. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji046. View

Czarnecki S, NANDA R, Currier G . Perceptions of a balanced facial profile. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104(2):180-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81008-X. View

Proffit W . Forty-year review of extraction frequencies at a university orthodontic clinic. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64(6):407-14. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0407:FROEFA>2.0.CO;2. View

Paquette D, Beattie J, Johnston Jr L . A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in "borderline" Class II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 102(1):1-14. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(92)70009-Y. View

Drobocky O, Smith R . Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 95(3):220-30. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90052-8. View

Anic-Milosevic S, Lapter-Varga M, Slaj M . Analysis of the soft tissue facial profile by means of angular measurements. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30(2):135-40. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm116. View

10.

Bishara S, Cummins D, Zaher A . Treatment and posttreatment changes in patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111(1):18-27. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70297-x. View

11.

Katsaros C, Ripplinger B, Hogel A, Berg R . The influence of extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment on the soft tissue profile. J Orofac Orthop. 1996; 57(6):354-65. DOI: 10.1007/BF02215673. View

12.

Honn M, Dietz K, Eiselt M, Goz G . Attractiveness of facial profiles as rated by individuals with different levels of education. J Orofac Orthop. 2008; 69(1):20-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-008-0735-4. View

13.

Bravo L . Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment with four premolars extracted. Angle Orthod. 1994; 64(1):31-42. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1994)064<0031:STFPCA>2.0.CO;2. View

14.

Bruntz L, Palomo J, Baden S, Hans M . A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(3):340-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.029. View

15.

Sayinsu K, Isik F, Trakyali G, Arun T . An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29(1):105-8. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjl065. View

16.

Bishara S, Cummins D, Jakobsen J, Zaher A . Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in Class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107(1):28-37. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70154-0. View

17.

James R . A comparative study of facial profiles in extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114(3):265-76. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70208-2. View

18.

Bishara S, Jakobsen J, Hession T, Treder J . Soft tissue profile changes from 5 to 45 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114(6):698-706. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70203-3. View

19.

Cousley R, Grant E, Kindelan J . The validity of computerized orthognathic predictions. J Orthod. 2003; 30(2):149-54; discussion 128. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/30.2.149. View

20.

Finnoy J, Wisth P, Boe O . Changes in soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1987; 9(1):68-78. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/9.1.68. View