Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2019, , 390 - 401, 29.12.2019

Ezgi Atik , Hande Gorucu-coskuner , Tulin Taner

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.587443

Öz

Kaynakça

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Germec-Cakan D, Taner TU, Akan S. Arch-width and perimeter changes in patients with borderline Class I malocclusion treated with extractions or without extractions with air-rotor stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:734 e1-7; discussion -5.
  • Kirschneck C, Proff P, Reicheneder C, Lippold C. 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. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:865-874.
  • Herzog C, Konstantonis D, Konstantoni N, Eliades T. Arch-width changes in extraction vs nonextraction treatments in matched Class I borderline malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:735-743.
  • Weyrich C, Lisson JA. The effect of premolar extractions on incisor position and soft tissue profile in patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. J Orofac Orthop 2009;70:128-138.
  • Germec D, Taner TU. Effects of extraction and nonextraction therapy with air-rotor stripping on facial esthetics in postadolescent borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:539-549.
  • Lim HJ, Ko KT, Hwang HS. Esthetic impact of premolar extraction and nonextraction treatments on Korean borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:524-531.
  • Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A, Demir A. The influence of extraction treatment on Holdaway soft-tissue measurements. Angle Orthod 2004;74:167-173.
  • Bowman SJ, Johnston LE, Jr. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle Orthod 2000;70:3-10.
  • Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:220-230.
  • Young TM, Smith RJ. Effects of orthodontics on the facial profile: a comparison of changes during nonextraction and four premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:452-458.
  • Pearson LE. Vertical control in treatment of patients having backward-rotational growth tendencies. Angle Orthod 1978;48:132-140.
  • Schudy FF. The Rotation of the Mandible Resulting from Growth: Its Implications in Orthodontic Treatment. Angle Orthod 1965;35:36-50.
  • Schudy FF. The control of vertical overbite in clinical orthodontics. Angle Orthod 1968;38:19-39.
  • Tulley WJ. The role of extractions in orthodontic treatment. Br Dent J 1959;107:199-205.
  • Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR. Profile changes in patients treated with and without extractions: assessments by lay people. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:639-644.
  • Stephens CK, Boley JC, Behrents RG, Alexander RG, Buschang PH. Long-term profile changes in extraction and nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:450-457.
  • Hayashida H, Ioi H, Nakata S, Takahashi I, Counts AL. Effects of retraction of anterior teeth and initial soft tissue variables on lip changes in Japanese adults. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:419-426.
  • Konstantonis D. The impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes in Class I borderline malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2012;82:209-217.
  • Kim TK, Kim JT, Mah J, Yang WS, Baek SH. First or second premolar extraction effects on facial vertical dimension. Angle Orthod 2005;75:177-182.
  • Omar Z, Short L, Banting DW, Saltaji H. Profile changes following extraction orthodontic treatment: A comparison of first versus second premolar extraction. Int Orthod 2018;16:91-104.
  • Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I--The hard tissues. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:501-516.
  • Konstantonis D, Vasileiou D, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Soft tissue changes following extraction vs. nonextraction orthodontic fixed appliance treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oral Sci 2018;126:167-179.
  • Kocadereli I. Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:67-72.
  • Yashwant VA RK, Arumugam E. Comparative evaluation of soft tissue changes in Class I borderline patients treated with extraction and nonextraction modalities. Dental Press J Orthod 2016;21:50-59.
  • Kouli A, Papagiannis A, Konstantoni N, Halazonetis DJ, Konstantonis D. A geometric morphometric evaluation of hard and soft tissue profile changes in borderline extraction versus non-extraction patients. Eur J Orthod 2018;41:264-272.
  • Nance HN. The removal of second premolars in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1949;35:685-696.
  • Hodges A, Rossouw PE, Campbell PM, Boley JC, Alexander RA, Buschang PH. Prediction of lip response to four first premolar extractions in white female adolescents and adults. Angle Orthod 2009;79:413-421.
  • Ramos AL, Sakima MT, Pinto Ados S, Bowman SJ. Upper lip changes correlated to maxillary incisor retraction--a metallic implant study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:499-505.
  • Fields HW, Proffit WR, Nixon WL, Phillips C, Stanek E. Facial pattern differences in long-faced children and adults. Am J Orthod 1984;85:217-223.
  • Kouvelis G, Dritsas K, Doulis I, Kloukos D, Gkantidis N. Effect of orthodontic treatment with 4 premolar extractions compared with nonextraction treatment on the vertical dimension of the face: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:175-187.
  • Kocadereli I. The effect of first premolar extraction on vertical dimension. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:41-45.
  • Kumari M, Fida M. Vertical facial and dental arch dimensional changes in extraction vs. non-extraction orthodontic treatment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2010;20:17-21.
  • Basciftci FA, Usumez S. Effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on class I and class II subjects. Angle Orthod 2003;73:36-42.
  • Beit P, Konstantonis D, Papagiannis A, Eliades T. Vertical skeletal changes after extraction and non-extraction treatment in matched class I patients identified by a discriminant analysis: cephalometric appraisal and Procrustes superimposition. Prog Orthod 2017;18:44.

Comparison of Orthodontic Treatment with Different Premolar Extraction Modalities İn Terms of Soft Tissue Profile

Yıl 2019, , 390 - 401, 29.12.2019

Ezgi Atik , Hande Gorucu-coskuner , Tulin Taner

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.587443

Öz

Objectives:To evaluate the differences of changes in soft tissue profile and dentoskeletal parameters between different premolar extraction and non-extraction treatment modalities. 

Materials and Methods: 50 patients with skeletal Class I malocclusion was divided into three groups. Group 1 consisted 17 patients (mean age:16.76±1.68 years) treated with maxillary and mandibular first premolar extractions; Group 2 consisted 16 patients (mean age:15.81±1.19 years) treated with maxillary and mandibular second premolar extractions, and Group 3 consisted 17 patients (mean age:16.29±1.15 years) treated with non-extraction protocol. From the pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) cephalometric radiographs, 13 measurements for dentoskeletal and 15 for soft tissue parameters were assessed. To determine changes due to treatment, and to compare differences among the groups, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed, respectively.

Results: Mx1-SN, Mx1-FH, Mx1-NA, IMPA and Md1-NB values decreased significantly in Group 1 and 2, compared to Group 3 (p<0.001). According to the vertical reference line (VRL-li) and E-plane (E-LL), the lower lip showed statistically significant change (retraction) in Group 1 and 2, compared to non-extraction group (p<0.05). The mean change value for the upper and lower lip thicknesses in Group 1 and 2 were greater than in Group 3 (p<0.05). Group 1 and 2 did not show significant difference in any dentoskeletal and soft tissue measurements between each other. 

Conclusions:Soft tissue profile change following extraction treatment was similar regardless of the extracted teeth. However extraction treatment modalities resulted in significant profile changes especially in the lower lip with regard to the non-extraction control group. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

soft tissue tooth extraction vertical dimension

Kaynakça

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Germec-Cakan D, Taner TU, Akan S. Arch-width and perimeter changes in patients with borderline Class I malocclusion treated with extractions or without extractions with air-rotor stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:734 e1-7; discussion -5.
  • Kirschneck C, Proff P, Reicheneder C, Lippold C. 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. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:865-874.
  • Herzog C, Konstantonis D, Konstantoni N, Eliades T. Arch-width changes in extraction vs nonextraction treatments in matched Class I borderline malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:735-743.
  • Weyrich C, Lisson JA. The effect of premolar extractions on incisor position and soft tissue profile in patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. J Orofac Orthop 2009;70:128-138.
  • Germec D, Taner TU. Effects of extraction and nonextraction therapy with air-rotor stripping on facial esthetics in postadolescent borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:539-549.
  • Lim HJ, Ko KT, Hwang HS. Esthetic impact of premolar extraction and nonextraction treatments on Korean borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:524-531.
  • Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A, Demir A. The influence of extraction treatment on Holdaway soft-tissue measurements. Angle Orthod 2004;74:167-173.
  • Bowman SJ, Johnston LE, Jr. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle Orthod 2000;70:3-10.
  • Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:220-230.
  • Young TM, Smith RJ. Effects of orthodontics on the facial profile: a comparison of changes during nonextraction and four premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:452-458.
  • Pearson LE. Vertical control in treatment of patients having backward-rotational growth tendencies. Angle Orthod 1978;48:132-140.
  • Schudy FF. The Rotation of the Mandible Resulting from Growth: Its Implications in Orthodontic Treatment. Angle Orthod 1965;35:36-50.
  • Schudy FF. The control of vertical overbite in clinical orthodontics. Angle Orthod 1968;38:19-39.
  • Tulley WJ. The role of extractions in orthodontic treatment. Br Dent J 1959;107:199-205.
  • Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR. Profile changes in patients treated with and without extractions: assessments by lay people. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:639-644.
  • Stephens CK, Boley JC, Behrents RG, Alexander RG, Buschang PH. Long-term profile changes in extraction and nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:450-457.
  • Hayashida H, Ioi H, Nakata S, Takahashi I, Counts AL. Effects of retraction of anterior teeth and initial soft tissue variables on lip changes in Japanese adults. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:419-426.
  • Konstantonis D. The impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes in Class I borderline malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2012;82:209-217.
  • Kim TK, Kim JT, Mah J, Yang WS, Baek SH. First or second premolar extraction effects on facial vertical dimension. Angle Orthod 2005;75:177-182.
  • Omar Z, Short L, Banting DW, Saltaji H. Profile changes following extraction orthodontic treatment: A comparison of first versus second premolar extraction. Int Orthod 2018;16:91-104.
  • Illing HM, Morris DO, Lee RT. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I--The hard tissues. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:501-516.
  • Konstantonis D, Vasileiou D, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Soft tissue changes following extraction vs. nonextraction orthodontic fixed appliance treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Oral Sci 2018;126:167-179.
  • Kocadereli I. Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:67-72.
  • Yashwant VA RK, Arumugam E. Comparative evaluation of soft tissue changes in Class I borderline patients treated with extraction and nonextraction modalities. Dental Press J Orthod 2016;21:50-59.
  • Kouli A, Papagiannis A, Konstantoni N, Halazonetis DJ, Konstantonis D. A geometric morphometric evaluation of hard and soft tissue profile changes in borderline extraction versus non-extraction patients. Eur J Orthod 2018;41:264-272.
  • Nance HN. The removal of second premolars in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1949;35:685-696.
  • Hodges A, Rossouw PE, Campbell PM, Boley JC, Alexander RA, Buschang PH. Prediction of lip response to four first premolar extractions in white female adolescents and adults. Angle Orthod 2009;79:413-421.
  • Ramos AL, Sakima MT, Pinto Ados S, Bowman SJ. Upper lip changes correlated to maxillary incisor retraction--a metallic implant study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:499-505.
  • Fields HW, Proffit WR, Nixon WL, Phillips C, Stanek E. Facial pattern differences in long-faced children and adults. Am J Orthod 1984;85:217-223.
  • Kouvelis G, Dritsas K, Doulis I, Kloukos D, Gkantidis N. Effect of orthodontic treatment with 4 premolar extractions compared with nonextraction treatment on the vertical dimension of the face: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:175-187.
  • Kocadereli I. The effect of first premolar extraction on vertical dimension. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:41-45.
  • Kumari M, Fida M. Vertical facial and dental arch dimensional changes in extraction vs. non-extraction orthodontic treatment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2010;20:17-21.
  • Basciftci FA, Usumez S. Effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on class I and class II subjects. Angle Orthod 2003;73:36-42.
  • Beit P, Konstantonis D, Papagiannis A, Eliades T. Vertical skeletal changes after extraction and non-extraction treatment in matched class I patients identified by a discriminant analysis: cephalometric appraisal and Procrustes superimposition. Prog Orthod 2017;18:44.
Toplam 36 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi
Bölüm Original Research Articles
Yazarlar

Ezgi Atik 0000-0002-5912-4505

Hande Gorucu-coskuner 0000-0001-7426-6731

Tulin Taner 0000-0003-1358-0633

Yayımlanma Tarihi 29 Aralık 2019
Gönderilme Tarihi 5 Temmuz 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019

Kaynak Göster

EndNote Atik E, Gorucu-coskuner H, Taner T (01 Aralık 2019) Comparison of Orthodontic Treatment with Different Premolar Extraction Modalities İn Terms of Soft Tissue Profile. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 22 4 390–401.

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.


CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.

Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.

Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.