A cephalometric evaluation of Class I serial extraction treatment

1967 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-138 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Class I ◽  
Extraction Treatment

scholarly journals Mandibular Incisor Extraction Treatment of a Class I Malocclusion with Bolton Discrepancy: A Case Report

2007 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 054-059 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Bayram ◽  
Mete Özer
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Class I ◽  
Tooth Size ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Mandibular Incisor ◽  
Mandibular Tooth ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Dental Crowding ◽  
Enamel Reduction ◽  
Extraction Treatment

ABSTRACTMany approaches for crowded mandibular anterior teeth are currently employed: distal movement of posterior teeth, lateral movement of canines, labial movement of incisors, interproximal enamel reduction, removal of premolars, removal of one or two incisors, and various combinations of the above. Selecting the best treatment is often difficult, and all guidelines do not apply to every case. Treatment by extraction of one single mandibular incisor is not popular in the orthodontic profession despite the apparent advantages of the extraction in the region of crowding. A case report is presented one mandibular incisor extraction treatment of a 16 year-old female with a Class I malocclusion that shows a significant mandibular arch length deficiency and mandibular tooth-size excess. In this case, the degree of mandibular anterior dental crowding, existing mandibular tooth-size excess, and the dental midline discrepancy were indicated the extraction of one mandibular incisor. (Eur J Dent 2007;1:54-59)

scholarly journals Evaluation of aesthetic anteroposterior position of maxillary incisors in patients with extraction treatment using facial reference lines

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 2951-2960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danqing He ◽  
Yan Gu ◽  
Yannan Sun
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Relative Position ◽  
Vertical Line ◽  
Class I ◽  
Maxillary Incisor ◽  
Anatomical Landmarks ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Maxillary Incisors ◽  
Extraction Treatment

Objective To examine whether facial reference lines could be used to evaluate the anteroposterior position of the maxillary incisors in patients that had undergone extraction treatment. Methods The study enrolled Angle Class I patients who had favourable facial profiles after extraction treatment. Superimposition of post-treatment lateral photographs and cephalograms were constructed and anatomical landmarks on the forehead were identified. Reference lines of the forehead’s anterior limit line (FALL) and the vertical line through the soft-tissue glabella (G line) were constructed. The distance between the maxillary incisors and the FALL and G line were measured. Regression analyses were performed between the maxillary incisor position and forehead inclination. Results Forty-one patients (31 females and 10 males) were included in the study. The mean ± SD distances of the facial-axis point of the maxillary incisors (FA)–FALL and FA–G line were 1.8 ± 1.9 mm and –2.4 ± 1.8 mm, respectively. The distance of the maxillary incisors to FALL and the relative position of the maxillary incisors were both significantly correlated with forehead inclination. Conclusions The mean position of the maxillary incisors in patients with extraction was approximately in the middle of the G line and the FALL. Correct maxillary incisor position was correlated with forehead inclination.

scholarly journals Arch Widths after Extraction and Nonextraction Treatment in Class I Patients

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikranth Shetty ◽  
Sangeeta A Golwalkar
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Clinical Significance ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Class I ◽  
Posterior Arch ◽  
Arch Width ◽  
End Of Treatment ◽  
Smile Esthetics ◽  
Digital Caliper ◽  
Extraction Treatment

ABSTRACT Aim To compare pretreatment and post-treatment dental arches in relation to intercanine and intermolar width changes in extraction and nonextraction treatment in class I patients. Materials and methods In this retrospective study pretreatment and post-treatment dental casts of 60 patients (30 extractions of first premolars and 30 nonextractions) were selected. Anterior and posterior arch widths in the canine and molar regions from the most labial aspect of buccal surfaces, the canines and the molars were measured with the help of digital caliper on the study models and compared statistically to determine whether the dental arches were narrower after extraction treatment. Results At the start of the treatment there were no statistically significant differences in maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths in both groups. At the end of treatment in both the groups anterior and posterior arch width changes were not significant except for the intercanine dimension which was 0.82 mm larger (p < 0.05) in the extraction group. Conclusion The extraction treatment does not result in narrower dental arches than nonextraction treatment in intercanine and intermolar region. Clinical significance It is documented that the arch widths determine smile esthetics and treatment stability. According to the findings of the present study the arch widths in extraction treatments are not narrower than nonextraction so there will not be any compromising effects on esthetics and treatment stability. How to cite this article Golwalkar SA, Shetty V. Arch Widths after Extraction and Nonextraction Treatment in Class I Patients. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(2):312-315.

scholarly journals A comparison of second premolar extraction and mini-implant total arch distalization with interproximal stripping

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 680-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-Ho Jung
Keyword(s):  
Single Phase ◽  
Class I ◽  
Treatment Result ◽  
Lower Incisor ◽  
Premolar Extraction ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
Lateral Cephalograms ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Incisor Retraction ◽  
Extraction Treatment

ABSTRACT Objective: The effect of total arch distalization using orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) combined with interproximal stripping (IPS) and second premolar extraction was investigated in Class I malocclusion patients. Materials and Methods: A total of 66 consecutively treated Class I malocclusion (Class I molar relationship; 0 mm &lt; overbite and overjet &lt; 4.5 mm) patients ranging in age from 17 to 44 years who received single-phase treatment were included in this study. Pre- and posttreatment lateral cephalograms and dental casts were measured and compared statistically. Results: In the distalization with IPS group, 3.6 mm and 3.8 mm of crowding in the upper and lower arches, respectively, were resolved, and 3.8 mm and 3.2 mm of upper and lower incisor retraction, respectively, were achieved simultaneously by the treatment. As a result of the second premolar extraction treatment, 3.9 mm and 3.6 mm of crowding in the upper and lower arches, respectively, were resolved, and 3.3 mm and 3.2 mm of incisor retraction, respectively, were achieved during treatment. There was no statistically significant difference in the amount of crowding and incisor retraction between the two groups. Conclusions: Total arch distalization using an OMI with IPS did not yield a significantly different treatment result compared to second premolar extraction treatment.

scholarly journals Frequency of orthodontic extraction

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila de S. Dardengo ◽  
Luciana Q. P. Fernandes ◽  
Jonas Capelli Júnior
Keyword(s):  
Rio De Janeiro ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Class I ◽  
Dental Extraction ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Clinical Records ◽  
Extraction Treatment

Introduction: The option of dental extraction for orthodontic purposes has been debated for more than 100 years, including periods when it was widely used in treatment, including the present, during which other methods are used to avoid dental extractions. The objective was to analyze the frequency of tooth extraction treatment performed between 1980 and 2011 at the Orthodontic Clinic of Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). Material and Methods: The clinical records of 1484 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were evaluated. The frequency of extractions was evaluated with regard to sex, Angle's classification, the different combinations of extractions and the period when orthodontic treatment began. Chi-square test was used to determine correlations between variables, while the chi-square test for trends was used to assess the frequency of extractions over the years. Results: There was a reduction of approximately 20% in the frequency of cases treated with tooth extraction over the last 32 years. The most frequently extracted teeth were first premolars. Patients with Class I malocclusion showed fewer extractions, while Class II patients underwent a higher number of extraction treatment. There were no statistically significant differences with regard to sex. Conclusion: New features introduced into the orthodontic clinic and new esthetic concepts contributed to reducing the number of cases treated with dental extractions. However, dental extractions for orthodontic purposes are still well indicated in certain cases.

Long-term stability of class i premolar extraction treatment

2003 ◽  
Vol 124 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jimmy C Boley ◽  
Jeffrey A Mark ◽  
Rohit C.L Sachdeva ◽  
Peter H Buschang
Keyword(s):  
Class I ◽  
Term Stability ◽  
Long Term Stability ◽  
Premolar Extraction ◽  
Extraction Treatment

scholarly journals Anteroposterior jaw position in persons with skeletal class I

2004 ◽  
Vol 57 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 434-438
Author(s):  
Predrag Vucinic ◽  
Branka Vukic-Culafic
Keyword(s):  
Morphological Characteristics ◽  
Class I ◽  
Skeletal Class ◽  
Facial Esthetics ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Maxilla And Mandible ◽  
Jaw Position ◽  
Extraction Treatment ◽  
Facial Type

Introduction Many authors point out that there are great differences in anthropometric studies due to racial, ethnic and population morphological characteristics. Facial type is a decisive factor when planning and setting objectives, as well as when choosing the mode of orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the morphological characteristics of antero-posterior position of maxilla and mandible and determine the most prevalent facial type in children living in Vojvodina. Material and methods Sixty cephalograms of both males and females, with skeletal class I and harmonious facial profile, were digitized and the following skeletal measurements were calculated: SNA, SNB and ANB angles. For comparative analysis, characteristics of craniofacial complex of the tested population were compared to Bolton standards from the Broadbent-Bolton longitudinal growth study. Results A statistically significant difference of both maxillary and mandibular prognathism were present when compared to Bolton standards. This indicates more retrognathic viscerocranial structures, and more posteriorly divergent profiles (SNA=81.7o; SNB=78.23o). Conclusion Differences identified in craniofacial parameters in relation to Bolton standards show that one should carefully consider the risk of altering facial esthetics of patients from Vojvodina with extraction treatment. Whenever possible, give priority to early non-extraction treatment, in order to reach the best possible end-result within the given facial type, preserving facial esthetics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document