» Articles » PMID: 24015010

Comparison of Esthetic Outcome After Extraction or Non-extraction Orthodontic Treatment in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Patients

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2013 Sep 10
PMID 24015010
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The extraction of premolars as a practical form of orthodontic therapy has been accepted for many years, but there remains a controversy regarding the effect of premolar extraction to improve esthetics as well as dentoskeletal relationship. The esthetic impact of the soft-tissue profile might play a major role in deciding on premolar extraction or non-extraction treatment, particularly in borderline patients. This cephalometric study was undertaken to compare the post-treatment soft-tissue profiles of successfully managed Class II, Division 1 malocclusions treated with either all first premolar extractions or treatment with a non-extraction therapy.

Materials And Methods: The sample consisted of 100 post-pubertal female patients of Class II Division I malocclusion. Group 1, treated with four first premolar extractions, consisted of 50 female patients with a mean age of 14 years 1 month. Group 2, treated without extractions, consisted of 50 patients with a mean age of 13 years 5 months. Pre-treatment and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were evaluated. The pre-treatment to post-treatment stage comparison and the intergroup comparison of the treatment changes were conducted between extraction and non-extraction groups of Class II malocclusion samples with t-tests.

Results: The soft-tissue facial profiles of the extraction and non-extraction samples were the same following active treatment except for a more retruded lower lip and a more pronounced lower labial sulcus in those patients subjected to extraction.

Conclusions: The extraction or non-extraction decision, if based on sound diagnostic criteria, seems to have no systematic detrimental effects on the facial profile.

Citing Articles

Application of CAD-CAM 3D Technology in Designing a Molar Distalization Device with Skeletal Anchorage: A Case Report.

Mezio M, Putrino A, Barbato E, Pandolfi S, Cassetta M Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(12).

PMID: 39727474 PMC: 11674299. DOI: 10.3390/dj12120417.


Soft Tissue Responses to Orthodontic Treatment: Impact of Premolar Extraction on Diverse Growth Patterns.

Murugesan A, Ramasamy N, Harikrishnan S Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e58077.

PMID: 38738154 PMC: 11088714. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58077.


Evaluation of Change in the Facial Profile and Aesthetics in Relation to Incisor Position in Both Maxillary and Mandibular Arches.

Singh A, Mahamuni A, Gaharwar J, Rai R, Yadav K, Sirishkusum C Cureus. 2023; 15(1):e34403.

PMID: 36874653 PMC: 9977329. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.34403.


Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment with or without tooth extractions in Class I malocclusion patients: A comparative study.

Freitas B, Rodrigues V, Rodrigues M, de Melo H, Dos Santos P J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019; 9(2):172-176.

PMID: 31211029 PMC: 6562227. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2018.07.003.


Changes of the Mandible after Orthodontic Treatment with and without Extraction of Four Premolars.

Hosseinzadeh-Nik T, Eftekhari A, Saffar Shahroudi A, Kharrazifard M J Dent (Tehran). 2017; 13(3):199-206.

PMID: 28392817 PMC: 5376547.


References
1.
Saelens N, De Smit A . Therapeutic changes in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20(3):225-36. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.3.225. View

2.
Basciftci F, Usumez S . Effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on class I and class II subjects. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73(1):36-42. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0036:EOEANT>2.0.CO;2. View

3.
Yogosawa F . Predicting soft tissue profile changes concurrent with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1990; 60(3):199-206. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1990)060<0199:PSTPCC>2.0.CO;2. View

4.
Zierhut E, Joondeph D, Artun J, LITTLE R . Long-term profile changes associated with successfully treated extraction and nonextraction Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70(3):208-19. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)070<0208:LTPCAW>2.0.CO;2. View

5.
Burstone C . Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967; 53(4):262-84. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(67)90022-x. View