Literature DB >> 1731486

The effect of maxillary first premolar extraction and incisor retraction on mandibular position: testing the central dogma of "functional orthodontics".

P E Luecke1, L E Johnston.   

Abstract

It has been argued by a vocal coterie of disaffected dentists that premolar extraction, incisor retraction, and "backward-pulling" mechanics conspire to "distalize" the condyles and, pari passu, to produce craniomandibular dysfunction. Given the gravity of this conjecture, it seemed appropriate to test the predictions it generates in a sample of patients of the type most often said to be at risk: 42 "edgewise" patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusions, treated in conjunction with the extraction of two maxillary first premolars. Regional and anterior cranial-base cephalometric superimpositions were used to quantify the individual components of the molar and overjet corrections, to measure both at the chin and condyles the mandibular displacement seen during treatment, and to examine the extent to which this displacement is related to the correction of maxillary incisor protrusion. Although the present patients underwent marked upper incisor retraction (on average, about 5 mm), lip retraction was much less pronounced, and 70% of the sample showed a net forward displacement of mandibular basal bone. Significantly, changes in condylar position were not correlated with incisor retraction, as the "functional orthodontists" would have it, but rather with the changes in the buccal occlusion and the growth of the maxilla. Thus, 30% of the patients who showed evidence of distal displacement were generally nongrowing patients who underwent more than average anchorage loss in the mandible and less than average loss in the maxilla.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1731486     DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(92)70075-L

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  7 in total

1.  Influence of facial growth pattern on outcome of extraction therapy.

Authors:  U Hirschfelder; O Boulouchou; D Müssig; A Fleischer-Peters
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 1.938

Review 2.  Orthodontic treatment and temporomandibular disorders: is there a relationship? Part 1: Clinical studies.

Authors:  J A McNamara; J C Türp
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Orthodontic Camouflage Treatment in an Adult Patient with a Class II, Division 1 Malocclusion - A Case Report.

Authors:  Appasaheb Naragond; Smitha Kenganal; Roshan Sagarkar
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2012-12-29

4.  Short-term effects of systematic premolar extraction on lip profile, vertical dimension and cephalometric parameters in borderline patients for extraction therapy--a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Christian Kirschneck; Peter Proff; Claudia Reicheneder; Carsten Lippold
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 3.573

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

Authors:  Mihri Amasyalı; Fidan Alakuş Sabuncuoğlu; Şeniz Karaçay; Mehmet Doğru; Handan Altuğ
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2017-01-11

6.  Frequency evaluation of different extraction protocols in orthodontic treatment during 35 years.

Authors:  Guilherme Janson; Fábio Rogério Torres Maria; Roberto Bombonatti
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 2.750

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

Authors:  Daniela Cubas Pupulim; José Fernando Castanha Henriques; Guilherme Janson; Fernanda Pinelli Henriques; Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas; Daniela Garib
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2019-05-20
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.