Article

Comparison of the outcomes of the lower incisor extraction, premolar extraction and non-extraction treatments

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.
The European Journal of Orthodontics (Impact Factor: 1.39). 07/2011; 34(6). DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr064
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the treatment outcome of lower incisor extraction and to compare it with premolar extraction and non-extraction treatment. The sample consisted of 60 subjects with Class I malocclusion and moderate crowding. The sample was separated into three groups: extraction of a lower incisor group, extraction of a four first premolar group and a non-extraction group. All groups involved 13 girls and 7 boys with a total of 20 patients. The Peer assessment rating (PAR) index was applied to a patient's pre-treatment (T1) and post-treatment (T2) dental casts. T1 dental casts were also used for determining Bolton discrepancy. One-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analysis. For the mean percentage PAR score reduction for each group, there was one significant difference seen between the lower incisor extraction group and the non-extraction group (P = 0.047). For the mean anterior ratios, there were significant differences among premolar extraction group versus non-extraction group (P = 0.042) and non-extraction group versus lower incisor extraction group (P = 0.000). For the mean overall ratios, there were significant differences among the premolar extraction group versus lower incisor extraction group (P = 0.048) and the non-extraction group versus lower incisor extraction group (P = 0.001). Orthodontic treatment without extraction has a better treatment outcome than the four-first premolar extraction and single lower incisor extraction protocols in Class I cases with moderate to severe mandibular anterior crowding.

1 Follower
 · 
206 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine by means of a systematic review the best treatment, whether interproximal wear or incisor extraction, to correct anterior lower crowding in Class I patients in permanent dentition. A literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science to retrieve studies published between January 1950 and October 2013. In selecting the sample, the following inclusion criteria were applied: studies involving interproximal wear and/or extraction of mandibular incisors, as well as Class I cases with anterior lower crowding in permanent dentition. Out of a total of 943 articles found after excluding duplicates, 925 were excluded after abstract analysis. After full articles were read, 13 were excluded by the eligibility criteria and one due to methodological quality; therefore, only fours articles remained: two retrospective and two randomized prospective studies. Data were collected, analyzed and organized in tables. Both interproximal wear and mandibular incisor extraction are effective in treating Class I malocclusion in permanent dentition with moderate anterior lower crowding and pleasant facial profile. There is scant evidence to determine the best treatment option for each case. Clinical decision should be made on an individual basis by taking into account dental characteristics, crowding, dental and oral health, patient's expectations and the use of set-up models.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To evaluate the long-term effects of self-ligating brackets (SLBs) on transverse dimensions of arches and skeletal and soft tissues and to quantitatively evaluate the treatment outcome after non-extraction treatment with SLBs. Methods The sample consisted of 24 (18 female and six male) subjects, with a mean age of 14.23 ± 2.19 years, who received treatment with the Damon®3 appliances. Complete records including cephalometric radiographs and plaster models were obtained before treatment (T1), immediately after treatment (T2), six months after treatment (T3), and two years (T4) after treatment. Digital study models were generated. Twenty lateral cephalometric, six frontal cephalometric, and eight dental cast measurements were examined. The Peer Assessment Rating index was used to measure the treatment outcome. The Wilcoxon test was applied for statistical analysis of the changes. Results There were significant increases in all transverse dental cast measurements with active treatment. There was some significant relapse in the long term, particularly in maxillary width (p < 0.05). Statistically significant increases were found in nasal (p < 0.001), maxillary base, upper molar, lower intercanine, and antigonial (p < 0.05) widths in T1-T2. Lower incisors were proclined and protruded in T1-T2. Conclusions SLBs correct crowding by mechanisms involving incisor proclination and protrusion and expansion of the dental arches, without induction of clinically significant changes in hard and soft tissues of the face.
    Korean Journal of Orthodontics 05/2014; 44(3):119-27. DOI:10.4041/kjod.2014.44.3.119 · 0.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: A controversy exists regarding better treatment outcomes when patients treated with extractions and without extractions are evaluated. The aims of this study were to use the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) to evaluate and compare treatment outcomes in extraction vs nonextraction Class I patients and to determine whether the treatment choice was a significant predictor of success according to the ABO examination. METHODS: Discriminant analysis was applied to a sample of 542 patients, and a borderline sample of 55 patients was obtained. Of these patients, 25 were treated with extractions and 30 without extraction of the 4 first premolars. Treatment results were then assessed using the 8 variables of the ABO-OGS. RESULTS: The total scores ranged from 11 to 41 (mean, 27.04; SD, 6.3) for the extraction group and from 16 to 44 (mean, 29.07; SD, 7.1) for the nonextraction group. The variable of buccolingual inclination had the highest scores in both groups (8.44 [SD, 3.3] for the extraction group; 8.90 [SD, 3.8] for the nonextraction group; mean difference, 0.46; 95% CI, -1.44, 2.37; P = 0.63). However, no statistically significant intergroup differences were found, either between the scores of the 8 ABO-OGS variables or between the total ABO-OGS scores. Regarding the success rates of the ABO examination, no significant difference was found between the 2 treatment groups (odds ratio, 2.55; 95% CI, 0.74, 0.85; P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: For a patient with a borderline Class I malocclusion, extraction and nonextraction treatment can achieve the same quality of results as assessed by the ABO-OGS. Additionally, in these Class I patients, the treatment modality (extraction or nonextraction) is not a significant predictor of passing the ABO examination.
    American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 12/2014; 146(6-6):717-23. DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.025 · 1.44 Impact Factor