A Comparison of the Effects of Extraction and Nonextraction Orthodontic Treatments on Cephalometric Parameters and Arch Widths

Mehmet Ali Yavan; Sümeyye Güler; Merve Nur Eğlenen; Mehmet Nezir Karaca

doi:10.7126/cumudj.812131

TR EN

Öz

Amaç: İki farklı tedavi yaklaşımının sefalometrik ölçümler ve ark genişlikleri üzerindeki etkilerini karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Sınıf I maloklüzyona sahip ve orta-şiddetli çapraşıklığı bulunan 45 bireyin sefalometrik radyografileri ve dental modelleri elde edilmiştir. Bireyler çekim yapılmayan (birinci) ve dört premolar çekimli (ikinci) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrılmıştır. Birinci grup, Damon Q sistemi ile tedavi gören 22 hastadan (9 kız, 13 erkek ortalama yaş 18.0 ± 1.68) oluşmakta iken ikinci grup konvansiyonel MBT braket sistemi ile tedavi edilen 23 hastadan (11 kız, 12 erkek yaş ortalaması: 17.9 ± 1.34) oluşmaktadır. Hastaların tedavi öncesi ve sonrası lateral sefalometrik radyografileri ve ark genişlikleri ölçülüp karşılaştırılmıştır. Her gruptaki tedavi değişikliklerini değerlendirmek için eşleştirilmiş örnekler t-testi kullanıldı. Gruplar arasındaki değişiklikleri karşılaştırmak için bağımsız örnekler t-testi yapıldı. Bulgular: Her iki grupta da tedavi ile sagital ve vertikal iskeletsel değerlerde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir değişiklik görülmemiştir (p>0,05). Üst ve alt kesici dişlerde birinci grupta anlamlı proklinasyon gözlenirken (p<0,01); ikinci grupta mandibular dişlerde anlamlı (p<0,05) retroklinasyon bulunmuştur. Dudakların birinci grupta belirgin olarak protrüze olduğu ve üst dudağın inceldiği gözlenmiş (p<0,01), ancak ikinci grupta istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir değişiklik gözlenmemiştir (p>0,05). Birinci grupta tüm transvers dental model ölçümlerinde anlamlı (p<0,01) artış tespit edilmiş, ancak ikinci grupta sadece intermolar genişliklerde anlamlı bir azalma gözlenmiştir (p<0,01). Sonuç: İki tedavi yöntemi dental ve yumuşak dokular ile ark genişlikleri üzerine birbirine zıt ve anlamlı etkiler göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

A Comparison of the Effects of Extraction and Nonextraction Orthodontic Treatments on Cephalometric Parameters and Arch Widths

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effects of two different treatment approaches on cephalometric measurements and arch widths. Materials and Methods: The retrospective study evaluated pre- and post-treatment cephalometric radiograms and dental models of 45 patients with Class I malocclusions and moderate-severe dental tooth size arch length discrepancies that underwent extraction or nonextraction treatment between 2015 and 2020. Group I (n=22 [9 female, 13 male]; mean age, 18.0 ± 1.68 years) was treated with the Damon Q bracket system and Group II (n=23 [11 female, 12 male]; mean age, 17.9 ± 1.34 years) was treated with the conventional MBT bracket system. Pre- and post-treatment lateral cephalometric radiograms were obtained and arch widths were measured for each subject. Paired samples t-test was used to evaluate the treatment changes within each group. To compare the changes between groups, independent samples t-test was performed. Results: No significant change was detected in the sagittal and vertical skeletal parameters in both groups (p>0.05). The upper and lower incisors proclined significantly in Group I (p<0.01) and the mandibular incisors retroclined significantly in Group II (p<0.05). The lips protruded significantly and the upper lip thickness decreased significantly in Group I (p<0.01), whereas no significant difference was observed in Group II (p>0.05). All the transversal dimensions increased significantly in Group I (p<0.01), while only the intermolar distance decreased significantly in Group II (p<0.01). Conclusions: Both treatment methods provided significantly different outcomes with regard to soft tissue parameters and arch widths.

Keywords

References

1. Aksu M, Kocadereli I. Arch width changes in extraction and nonextraction treatment in class I patients. Angle Orthod 2005;75:948-952.
1. Aksu M, Kocadereli I. Arch width changes in extraction and nonextraction treatment in class I patients. Angle Orthod 2005;75:948-952.
2. Little RM, Wallen TR., Riedel RA. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment—first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981;80:349-365.
2. Little RM, Wallen TR., Riedel RA. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment—first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981;80:349-365.
3. Bishara, SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR. The morphologic basis for the extraction decision in Class II, division 1 malocclusions: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:129-135.
3. Bishara, SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR. The morphologic basis for the extraction decision in Class II, division 1 malocclusions: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:129-135.
4. Freitas KMS, Freitas DS, Valarelli FP, Freitas MR, Janson G. PAR evaluation of treated Class I extraction patients. Angle Orthod 2008;78:270-274.
4. Freitas KMS, Freitas DS, Valarelli FP, Freitas MR, Janson G. PAR evaluation of treated Class I extraction patients. Angle Orthod 2008;78:270-274.

5. Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile estheties after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:162-167.
5. Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile estheties after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:162-167.
6. Paquette DE, Beattie JR, Johnston Jr LE. A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in “borderline” Class II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:1-14.
6. Paquette DE, Beattie JR, Johnston Jr LE. A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in “borderline” Class II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:1-14.
7. Weinberg M, Sadowsky C. Resolution of mandibular arch tooth size arch length discrepancies in growing patients with Class I malocclusions treated nonextraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:359-364.
7. Weinberg M, Sadowsky C. Resolution of mandibular arch tooth size arch length discrepancies in growing patients with Class I malocclusions treated nonextraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:359-364.
8. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:340-347.
8. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:340-347.
9. Loh KW. Rapid tooth movement with a low-force, low-friction bracket system. J Clin Orthod 2007;41:451-457.
9. Loh KW. Rapid tooth movement with a low-force, low-friction bracket system. J Clin Orthod 2007;41:451-457.
10. DH D. Damon system, The Workbook. Sybron Dental 2004;14.
10. DH D. Damon system, The Workbook. Sybron Dental 2004;14.
11. Tagawa D. The Damon system vs. conventional appliances: a comparative study. Clin Impressions 2006;15:4-9.
11. Tagawa D. The Damon system vs. conventional appliances: a comparative study. Clin Impressions 2006;15:4-9.
12. Damon D.The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self‐ligating bracket. Clinical orthodontics and research 1998;1:52-61.
12. Damon D.The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self‐ligating bracket. Clinical orthodontics and research 1998;1:52-61.
13. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:99-105.
13. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:99-105.
14. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of tooth size arch length discrepancies using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:248-253.
14. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of tooth size arch length discrepancies using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:248-253.
15. Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes LHS, B Melsen. Transversal maxillary dento‐alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self‐ligating brackets: a randomized clinical trial using CBCT‐scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:222-233.
15. Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes LHS, B Melsen. Transversal maxillary dento‐alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self‐ligating brackets: a randomized clinical trial using CBCT‐scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:222-233.
16. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134: 470-470
16. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134: 470-470
17. Ileri Z, Basciftci FA, Malkoc S, Ramoglu SI. Comparison of the outcomes of the lower incisor extraction, premolar extraction and non-extraction treatments. Eur J Orthod 2012;34: 681-685
17. Ileri Z, Basciftci FA, Malkoc S, Ramoglu SI. Comparison of the outcomes of the lower incisor extraction, premolar extraction and non-extraction treatments. Eur J Orthod 2012;34: 681-685
18. Arman A, Toygar TU, Abuhijleh E. Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2004;74: 733-740.
18. Arman A, Toygar TU, Abuhijleh E. Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in Class III malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2004;74: 733-740.
19. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the edgewise arch in the treatment of class II, division 1, malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1936;6(3):198-208.
19. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the edgewise arch in the treatment of class II, division 1, malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1936;6(3):198-208.
20. Kim E, Gianelly AA. Extraction vs nonextraction: arch widths and smile esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003;73:354-358.
20. Kim E, Gianelly AA. Extraction vs nonextraction: arch widths and smile esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003;73:354-358.
21. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. Els Health Sci 2001.
21. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. Els Health Sci 2001.
22. Battagel JM. Profile changes in Class II, division 1 malocclusions: a comparison of the effects of Edgewise and Frankel appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:243-253.
22. Battagel JM. Profile changes in Class II, division 1 malocclusions: a comparison of the effects of Edgewise and Frankel appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:243-253.
23. Blanchette ME, Nanda RS, Currier GF, Ghosh J, Nanda SK. A longitudinal cephalometric study of the soft tissue profile of short-and long face syndromes from 7 to 17 years. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:116-131.
23. Blanchette ME, Nanda RS, Currier GF, Ghosh J, Nanda SK. A longitudinal cephalometric study of the soft tissue profile of short-and long face syndromes from 7 to 17 years. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:116-131.
24. Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Dandajena TC. Profile changes of patients treated with and without premolar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:324-331.
24. Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Dandajena TC. Profile changes of patients treated with and without premolar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:324-331.
25. Basciftci FA, Usumez S. Effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on Class I and Class II subjects. Angle Orthod 2003;73:36-42.
25. Basciftci FA, Usumez S. Effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on Class I and Class II subjects. Angle Orthod 2003;73:36-42.
26. Basciftci FA, Akin M, Ileri Z, Bayram S. Long-term stability of dentoalveolar, skeletal, and soft tissue changes after non-extraction treatment with a self-ligating system. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:119-127.
26. Basciftci FA, Akin M, Ileri Z, Bayram S. Long-term stability of dentoalveolar, skeletal, and soft tissue changes after non-extraction treatment with a self-ligating system. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:119-127.
27. Atik, E, Ciğer S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. Angle Orthod, 2014;84:615-622.
27. Atik, E, Ciğer S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. Angle Orthod, 2014;84:615-622.
28. Vajaria R, BeGole E, Kusnoto B, Galang MT, Obrez. A Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system. Angle Orthod 2011;81: 647-652.
28. Vajaria R, BeGole E, Kusnoto B, Galang MT, Obrez. A Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system. Angle Orthod 2011;81: 647-652.
29. Finnöy J, Wisth P, Böe O. Changes in soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1987;9:68-78.
29. Finnöy J, Wisth P, Böe O. Changes in soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1987;9:68-78.
30. Zierhut EC, Joondeph DR, Artun J, Little RM. Long-term profile changes associated with successfully treated extraction and nonextraction Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2000;70:208-219.
30. Zierhut EC, Joondeph DR, Artun J, Little RM. Long-term profile changes associated with successfully treated extraction and nonextraction Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2000;70:208-219.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Mehmet Ali Yavan ^*
0000-0002-2162-060X
Türkiye

Sümeyye Güler
0000-0002-0572-015X
Türkiye

Merve Nur Eğlenen
0000-0001-7688-0858
Türkiye

Mehmet Nezir Karaca
0000-0001-8612-0094
Türkiye

Publication Date

February 24, 2021

Submission Date

October 18, 2020

Acceptance Date

December 23, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 24 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.812131

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA49BH79EK

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Yavan MA, Güler S, Eğlenen MN, Karaca MN (February 1, 2021) A Comparison of the Effects of Extraction and Nonextraction Orthodontic Treatments on Cephalometric Parameters and Arch Widths. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 24 1 47–56.

Cited By

Vertical skeletal dimension and dentoalveolar changes in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment in class I malocclusion: a non-randomized clinical trial

Clinical Oral Investigations

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-026-06768-0