Literature DB >> 9790323

Long-term comparison of extraction and nonextraction alternatives in matched samples of African American patients.

B L Hagler1, J Lupini, L E Johnston.   

Abstract

African American orthodontic patients often present with morphologic characteristics that prompt the extraction of premolars. Referring dentists, however, commonly see extraction as a cause of "dished in" profiles, collapsed arches, and temporomandibular dysfunction. If true, these claims imply that African American patients are disproportionately at risk of clinical misadventure. Unfortunately, a meaningful long-term comparison of alternative treatments--be it retrospective or prospective--requires samples of patients who were equally susceptible to the two alternatives. Thus, if a retrospective study is to be free of susceptibility bias, the samples must be matched with respect to the anatomic differences that prompted the clinicians' choice of treatments. The goals of this investigation, therefore, were the following: to gather a large sample of African American expatients and to identify by means of discriminant analysis the characteristics that seem to have been important to the extraction decision, to use this knowledge to assemble subsamples of extraction and nonextraction expatients (both Class I and II) who were similar before treatment, and, finally, to recall them so that the long-term impact of the two strategies could be compared. In the end, 60 expatients--30 extraction and 30 nonextraction--were recalled, on average, nearly 8 years after the completion of treatment. In general, both treatments reduced irregularity and neither seemed to produce posterior mandibular displacement. Premolar extraction led to a modest reduction in dental and soft tissue protrusion (half the incisor retraction minus one); nonextraction, by way of contrast, produced an increase. Long term, the difference between the two treatments was about 2 mm at the upper lip and 4 mm at the lower. Excessive profile flattening was not a common finding. Our findings thus imply that the various "functional orthodontic" arguments against premolar extraction do not apply to African Americans any more than they do to whites.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9790323     DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70184-2

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


  4 in total

1.  Myths and realities in orthodontics.

Authors:  P S Fleming; S D Springate; R A C Chate
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 1.626

Review 2.  Soft tissue changes following the extraction of premolars in nongrowing patients with bimaxillary protrusion. A systematic review.

Authors:  Rosalia Leonardi; Alberto Annunziata; Valeria Licciardello; Ersilia Barbato
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Cephalometric evaluation of soft tissue changes after extraction of upper first premolars in class ΙΙ div 1 patients.

Authors:  Gholamreza-Eslami Amirabadi; Marzieh Mirzaie; Somayyeh-Mehrabi Kushki; Pooya Olyaee
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2014-12-01

4.  Disparity in opinions on lip protrusiveness in contemporary African American faces.

Authors:  Yvette Battle; Monica Schneider; Laurence Magder; Eung-Kwon Pae
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2017-11-19       Impact factor: 1.372

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.