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: 1.53). 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
199 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mandibular incisor extraction in carefully selected cases as an alternative option to four bicuspid extraction or non extraction treatment has been advocated. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of improvement in occlusion in patients with Bolton discrepancy treated by one lower incisor extraction using Peer Assessment Rating Index (PAR indexes). Pre and post treatment dental casts of 14 patients treated with one lower incisor extraction were included in the study. Pre and post treatment dental casts were scored with PAR index. 70% reduction in PAR index was considered as high standard improvement. To test the hypothesis that the mean improvement in dental occlusion after one mandibular incisor extraction is at least 70%, one-tail one-sample student t-test was used. The mean improvement in dental occlusion in this group of patients was 78%. Fifty percent of the cases finished with a post treatment PAR score of 2. Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.763 (p<0.01), showing that more severe cases had greater post treatment PAR scores. Mandibular incisor extraction treatment may provide a high standard treatment outcome.
    03/2012; 9(1):27-34.
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    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