Yıl 2021, Cilt 24 , Sayı 1, Sayfalar 47 - 56 2021-02-24

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

Mehmet Ali YAVAN [1] , Sümeyye GÜLER [2] , Merve Nur EĞLENEN [3] , Mehmet Nezir KARACA [4]


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.
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.
  • 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.
Birincil Dil en
Konular Sağlık Bilimleri ve Hizmetleri
Bölüm Original Research Articles
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0002-2162-060X
Yazar: Mehmet Ali YAVAN (Sorumlu Yazar)
Kurum: ADIYAMAN UNIVERSITY
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0002-0572-015X
Yazar: Sümeyye GÜLER
Kurum: ADIYAMAN UNIVERSITY
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0001-7688-0858
Yazar: Merve Nur EĞLENEN
Kurum: OKAN UNIVERSITY
Ülke: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0001-8612-0094
Yazar: Mehmet Nezir KARACA
Kurum: HARRAN UNIVERSITY
Ülke: Turkey


Tarihler

Başvuru Tarihi : 18 Ekim 2020
Kabul Tarihi : 23 Aralık 2020
Yayımlanma Tarihi : 24 Şubat 2021

EndNote %0 Cumhuriyet Dental Journal A Comparison of the Effects of Extraction and Nonextraction Orthodontic Treatments on Cephalometric Parameters and Arch Widths %A Mehmet Ali Yavan , Sümeyye Güler , Merve Nur Eğlenen , Mehmet Nezir Karaca %T A Comparison of the Effects of Extraction and Nonextraction Orthodontic Treatments on Cephalometric Parameters and Arch Widths %D 2021 %J Cumhuriyet Dental Journal %P 1302-5805-2146-2852 %V 24 %N 1 %R doi: 10.7126/cumudj.812131 %U 10.7126/cumudj.812131