Literature DB >> 30075920

Effect of orthodontic treatment with 4 premolar extractions compared with nonextraction treatment on the vertical dimension of the face: A systematic review.

Georgios Kouvelis1, Konstantinos Dritsas2, Ioannis Doulis3, Dimitrios Kloukos4, Nikolaos Gkantidis5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to assess the available evidence for the effects of orthodontic treatment with 4 premolar extractions on the skeletal vertical dimension of the face compared with nonextraction treatment.
METHODS: Electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, and CENTRAL) of published and unpublished literature and hand searches of eligible studies were performed, with no language or publication date restrictions. Two authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed.
RESULTS: After application of the eligibility criteria, 14 studies were included in this systematic review. All were retrospective. Risk of bias ranged from moderate to critical. Ten studies investigated patients with various skeletal vertical patterns and classes of malocclusion and found no difference between extraction (Ex) and nonextraction (Nonex) treatment in regard to the vertical dimension. Only 2 studies found statistically significant increases in the nonextraction groups, one in N-Me (Ex: +1.5 mm; Nonex: +5.5 mm; P <0.05) and one in SN-GoGn (Ex: -0.9°; Nonex: +0.8°; P <0.05), but without a concurrent significant change in other vertical measurements such as FMA. Two other studies showed opposite findings regarding N-Me (Ex: +2.3 mm; Nonex: +0.9 mm; P <0.05) and FMA (Ex: +0.3°; Nonex: -2.0°; P <0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to low, there was considerable agreement among these studies, suggesting that orthodontic treatment with 4 premolar extractions has no specific effect on the skeletal vertical dimension. Thus, an extraction treatment protocol aiming to reduce or control the vertical dimension does not seem to be an evidence-based clinical approach.
Copyright © 2018 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30075920     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.03.007

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


  5 in total

1.  Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions.

Authors:  Johan Willem Booij; Marco Serafin; Rosamaria Fastuca; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Alberto Caprioglio
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Extraction or non-extraction treatment for Class II division 2 malocclusion?

Authors:  Benjamin J Goldstein; Analia Veitz-Keenan
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2018-10

3.  Which factors influence orthodontists in their decision to extract? A questionnaire survey.

Authors:  Astrid Evrard; Michele Tepedino; Paolo M Cattaneo; Marie A Cornelis
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2019-05-01

4.  Three-dimensional analysis of the physiologic drift of adjacent teeth following maxillary first premolar extractions.

Authors:  Fei Teng; Fei-Yu Du; Hui-Zhong Chen; Ruo-Ping Jiang; Tian-Min Xu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Haonan Tian; Congman Xie; Min Lin; Hongmei Yang; Aishu Ren
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 2.757

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.