Research Article of International Journal of Dental Research and Reviews
Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes in Class I Patients Treated with Extraction and Non Extraction Modalities
Jeevan kumar.M1, Anoosha.M2, Padma priya .C.V3, Praveen kumar varma .D4, Goutham chakravarthy.v5
1. Post graduate student from the department of orthodontics, Vishnu dental college, bhimavaram.
2. Senior lecturer from the department of orthodontics, Vishnu dental college, bhimavaram.
3. Professor and head from the department of orthodontics, Vishnu dental college, bhimavaram.
4. Professor from the department of orthodontics, Vishnu dental college, bhimavaram.
5. Professor from the department of orthodontics, Vishnu dental college, bhimavaram.
Background : Extractions are frequently used to treat crowding, protrusion of teeth and the soft tissue covering. The common consequences of extraction therapy were believed to be “dished-in profiles”, constriction of dental arch, and increased width of the buccal corridor space, whereas non extraction treatment results in poor stability and protrusive profile in borderline cases. Aim: Aim of the present study was to compare the cephalometric soft tissue changes between Class I malocclusion patients who were treated with first premolar extractions and Class I malocclusion patients who were treated with non extraction with similar appliances. Methods and Material: It is a retrospective study were the treatment records of 50 (25: extraction and 25: non extraction) orthodontic patients with Angles and skeletal Class I malocclusion of age between 13-30 years were randomly selected. Both pre and post treatment lateral cephalograms were traced manually and soft tissue changes were measured and analyzed between extraction & non- extraction group. Statistical analysis: Independent samples t test, Paired-t test. Results: Within extraction group, Angle of convexity, Upper lip to e-line, lower lip to e-line, nose prominence and interlabial gap are the parameters which has shown statistically significant(p=.000*)difference after the treatment and within the non extraction group upper lip thickness was the only parameter which has shown statistically significant (p=.005*) difference after the treatment. The remaining parameters have not shown any significant difference
Conclusions: Profile improvement was better with extraction protocol compared to non-extraction therapy. Lip competence was better achieved with extraction therapy Overall the choice of the treatment modality depends on the severity of the problem.
Keywords: Natural head position, conventional orthodontic treatment, Lefort I surgery, BSSO set back.
How to cite this article:
Jeevan kumar.M, Anoosha.M, Padma priya .C.V, Praveen kumar varma .D, Goutham chakravarthy.v. Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes in Class I Patients Treated with Extraction and Non Extraction Modalities. International Journal of Dental Research and Reviews, 2019, 2:15
1. Iared W, da Silva EM, Iared W, Macedo CR. Esthetic perception of changes in facial profile resulting from orthodontic treatment with extraction of premolars: A systematic review. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2017 Jan 1;148(1):9-16.
2. Anderson jp, joondeph dr, turpin dl. A cephalometric study of profile changes in orthodontically treated cases ten years out of retention. The Angle orthodontist. 1973 Jul;43(3):324-36.
3. Tweed CH. Indications for the extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. American journal of orthodontics and oral surgery. 1944 Aug 1;30(8):405-28.
4. Kocadereli I. Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2002 Jul 1; 122(1):67-72.
5. Finnoy JP, Wisth PJ, Boe OE. Changes in soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1987;9(1):68-78.
6. Xu TM, Liu Y, Yang MZ, Huang W. Comparison of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment outcomes for borderline Chinese patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 May; 129(5):672-7.
7. Konstantonis D. The impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes in Class I borderline malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2012 Mar; 82(2):209-17.
8. Aniruddh Yashwant ,Comparative evaluation of soft tissue changes in Class I borderline patients treated with extraction and nonextraction modalities. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016 Jul-Aug;21(4):50-9.
9. Saelens NA, De Smit A. Therapeutic changes in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20:225-36.
10. Oliver BM. The influence of lip thickness and strain on upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982;82:141-9.
11. Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989 Mar;5(3):220-30.
12. Bravo LA. Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment with four premolars extracted. Angle Orthod. 1994;64(1):31-42.
13. Battagel JM. The relationship between hard and soft tissue changes following treatment of Class II division I malocclusions using Edgewise and Fra¨nkel appliance techniques. Eur J Orthod. 1990;12:154–165.
14. Paquette DE, Beattie JR, Johnston LE Jr. A long-term comparison of non extraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in ‘‘borderline’’ Class II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;102:1–14.
15. Yogosawa F. Predicting soft tissue profile changes concurrent with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1990 Fall;60(3):199-206.
16. Jacobs JD. Vertical lip changes from maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1978 Oct;74(4):396-404.
17. Wholley CJ, Woods MG. The effects of commonly prescribed premolar extraction sequences on the curvature of the upper and lower lips. The Angle Orthodontist. 2003 Aug;73(4):386-95.
18. 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.
19. Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Dandajena TC. Profile changes of patients treated with and without premolar extractions. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2007 Sep 1;132(3):324-31.
20. Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston Jr LE. The effects of premolar-extraction: a long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut” extraction and nonextraction Class II patients. The Angle Orthodontist. 1993 Dec;63(4):257-72.
21. Janson G, dos Santos PB, Garib DG, Francisconi MF, de Oliveira Baldo T, Barros SE. Interlabial gap behavior with time. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists. 2013 Dec 1;2(4):e175-9.
This work and its PDF file(s) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.