Second Versus First Molar Extractions in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Treatment: A Retrospective Longitudinal Outcome Study into Maxillary Canine, Premolar, and Molar Movement

Overview

Journal J Clin Med

Date 2025 Jan 11

PMID 39797316

Authors

Akkelien H A Oostenbrink

Ewald M Bronkhorst

Johan W Booij

Arjan J A Dieters

Yijin Ren

Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman

Robin Bruggink

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This retrospective longitudinal outcome study comparing orthodontic extraction modalities, including extraction of maxillary first or second molars, aimed to compare the three-dimensional tooth movement of maxillary canines (C), premolars (P1, P2), and molars (M1, M2) in Class II division 1 malocclusion treatment with fixed appliances. A sample of 98 patients (mean age 13.20 ± 1.46 years) was selected for the M1 group, and 64 patients (mean age 13.20 ± 1.36 years) were chosen for the M2 group. Tooth movement was analyzed three-dimensionally on pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) digital dental casts. Regression analyses compared the tooth movements (in mm) between the M1 and M2 groups. The mean treatment duration for the M1 group was 2.51 ± 0.55 year, while, for the M2 group, it was 1.53 ± 0.37 year. The data showed limited distal movements of the C, P1, and P2 of approximately 2 mm in the M1 group and 1 mm in the M2 group during orthodontic treatment, but the M1 group exhibited significantly more distal movements than the M2 group (mean difference 1.11 to 1.24 mm). Vertical movements of the C, P1, and P2 in both groups were also minor (0.16 to 1.26 mm). The differences between groups did not exceed 0.2 mm and were not significant. Both treatment modalities resulted in a significant degree of anchorage loss with a distinct mesialization (8.40 ± 1.66 mm) of M2 in the M1 group and limited distalization (0.83 ± 0.98 mm) of M1 in the M2 group. The findings highlight the importance of thorough case evaluation when choosing between extraction modalities in Class II treatment. If a large distal movement of canines and premolars is required, additional anchorage mechanics should be considered.

References

Evrard A, Tepedino M, Cattaneo P, Cornelis M . Which factors influence orthodontists in their decision to extract? A questionnaire survey. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019; 11(5):e432-e438. PMC: 6599705. DOI: 10.4317/jced.55709. View

Booij J, Kuijpers-Jagtman A, Bronkhorst E, Livas C, Ren Y, Kuijpers M . Class II Division 1 malocclusion treatment with extraction of maxillary first molars: Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2020; 24(1):102-110. PMC: 7891627. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12412. View

Ganzer N, Feldmann I, Liv P, Bondemark L . A novel method for superimposition and measurements on maxillary digital 3D models-studies on validity and reliability. Eur J Orthod. 2017; 40(1):45-51. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjx029. View

Schmitz J, Keilig L, Daratsianos N, Bourauel C . Superimposition of dental models to determine orthodontic tooth movements : Comparison of different superimposition methods in vitro and in vivo. J Orofac Orthop. 2024; . DOI: 10.1007/s00056-024-00513-6. View

Liu J, Koh K, Choi S, Kim J, Cha J . Validation of three-dimensional digital model superimpositions based on palatal structures in patients with maximum anterior tooth retraction following premolar extraction. Korean J Orthod. 2022; 52(4):258-267. PMC: 9314216. DOI: 10.4041/kjod21.126. View

Booij J, Serafin M, Fastuca R, Kuijpers-Jagtman A, Caprioglio A . Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(11). PMC: 9181379. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11113170. View

Hamza B, Papageorgiou S, Patcas R, Schatzle M . Spontaneous space closure after extraction of permanent first molars in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2024; 46(6). PMC: 11461913. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjae054. View

Abbing A, Koretsi V, Eliades T, Papageorgiou S . Duration of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adolescents and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Prog Orthod. 2020; 21(1):37. PMC: 7533275. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-020-00334-4. View

Pancherz H . The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82(2):104-13. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90489-4. View

10.

Staley R, Stuntz W, Peterson L . A comparison of arch widths in adults with normal occlusion and adults with class II, Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88(2):163-9. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(85)90241-6. View

11.

Alsaggaf D, Afify A, Zawawi K, Alsulaimani F . Factors influencing the orthodontic treatment plan in Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2022; 161(6):829-837.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.01.034. View

12.

Konstantonis D, Vasileiou D, Papageorgiou S, Eliades T . Soft tissue changes following extraction vs. nonextraction orthodontic fixed appliance treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oral Sci. 2018; 126(3):167-179. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12409. View

13.

Atik E, Akarsu-Guven B, Kocadereli I . Soft tissue effects of three different Class II/1-camouflage treatment strategies. J Orofac Orthop. 2017; 78(2):153-165. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0066-9. View

14.

de Freitas M, De Lima D, Freitas K, Janson G, Henriques J . Strategic maxillary second-molar extraction in Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136(6):878-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.039. View

15.

Haque S, Sandler J, Cobourne M, Bassett P, DiBiase A . A retrospective study comparing the loss of anchorage following the extraction of maxillary first or second premolars during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adolescent patients. J Orthod. 2017; 44(4):268-276. DOI: 10.1080/14653125.2017.1333248. View

16.

Basdra E, Stellzig A, Komposch G . Extraction of maxillary second molars in the treatment of Class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod. 1996; 66(4):287-92. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1996)066<0287:EOMSMI>2.3.CO;2. View

17.

Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison J, Worthington H, OBrien K . Early orthodontic treatment for Class II malocclusion reduces the chance of incisal trauma: Results of a Cochrane systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 148(1):47-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.030. View

18.

Paddenberg E, Braun M, Proff P, Lippold C, Kirschneck C . Comparative treatment outcomes after bilateral extractions of maxillary second molars or first premolars in patients with class II malocclusion: a retrospective study. Head Face Med. 2023; 19(1):5. PMC: 9990326. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-023-00353-6. View

19.

Raposo R, Peleteiro B, Paco M, Pinho T . Orthodontic camouflage versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment in class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017; 47(4):445-455. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.09.003. View

20.

Batista K, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison J, OBrien K . Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 3:CD003452. PMC: 6494411. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub4. View