Literature DB >> 28364897

Arch-width changes in extraction vs nonextraction treatments in matched Class I borderline malocclusions.

Claudio Herzog1, Dimitrios Konstantonis2, Nikoleta Konstantoni3, Theodore Eliades4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to identify a sample of borderline Class I extraction and nonextraction patients and to investigate posttreatment changes in arch-width and perimeter measurements.
METHODS: A parent sample of 580 Class I patients was subjected to discriminant analysis, and a borderline subsample of 62 patients, 31 treated with extraction of 4 first premolars and 31 treated without extractions, was obtained. The patients' plaster casts were digitally scanned, and the maxillary and mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths and perimeters were assessed.
RESULTS: The extraction group showed increases in maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths (P <0.001) and decreases in mandibular intermolar width and in maxillary and mandibular perimeters (P <0.001). The nonextraction group showed increases in all 4 arch-width measurements (P ≤0.003), whereas the maxillary and mandibular perimeters were maintained. The posttreatment differences between the 2 groups showed significant differences in the maxillary (P <0.001) and mandibular intermolar widths (P <0.001). Also, the comparison of the arch perimeters between the 2 treatment groups showed adjusted differences of -8.51 mm (P <0.001) and -8.44 mm (P <0.001) for the maxillary and mandibular arches, respectively. The intercanine widths showed no changes between the 2 treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Borderline Class I patients treated with extraction of 4 first premolars had decreased maxillary and mandibular intermolar and perimeter measurements compared with nonextraction patients. The maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths showed no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups.
Copyright © 2016 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28364897     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.10.021

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


  6 in total

1.  Airway and cephalometric changes in adult orthodontic patients after premolar extractions.

Authors:  Adrienne Joy; Joorok Park; David William Chambers; Heesoo Oh
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Agreement of the clinician's choice of archwire selection on conventional and virtual models.

Authors:  Sahar Haddadpour; Saeed Reza Motamedian; Mohammad Behnaz; Sohrab Asefi; Alireza Akbarzadeh Bagheban; Amir Hossein Abdi; Mahtab Nouri
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Vertical skeletal changes after extraction and non-extraction treatment in matched class I patients identified by a discriminant analysis: cephalometric appraisal and Procrustes superimposition.

Authors:  Philipp Beit; Dimitrios Konstantonis; Alexandros Papagiannis; Theodore Eliades
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2017-12-18       Impact factor: 2.750

4.  Do premolar extractions necessarily result in a flat face? No, when properly indicated.

Authors:  Susiane Allgayer; Maurício Barbieri Mezomo
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2018 Sep-Oct

5.  The effect of regular dental cast artifacts on the 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental models.

Authors:  Eva Henninger; Georgios Vasilakos; Demetrios Halazonetis; Nikolaos Gkantidis
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Extraction vs. Nonextraction on Soft-Tissue Profile Change in Patients with Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  SangYoun Moon; Abdelrahman Magdi Ahmd Mohamed; YaLi He; WenJie Dong; Chen Yaosen; Yan Yang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-09-18       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.