Evaluation of the effect of upper first premolar extraction on maxillary and mandibular posterior space

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 40 Sayı: 2, 37 - 42, 02.05.2023

Hacı Fatih Ünver Tuba Tortop

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.1099687

Öz

Objective: To evaluate the effect of the upper first molar extraction on maxillary and mandibular posterior spaces.
Materials and Method: The material of the study consisted of lateral cephalometric radiographs of 20 individuals with dental Class II malocclusion who were treated with fixed appliances by extraction of the upper two premolars, before treatment (T1), after treatment (T2), and after retention (T3). On the lateral cephalometric radiographs, 7 dimensional and 4 angular measurements were performed by the same investigator. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine whether the distribution of continuous numerical variables was close to normal. The statistical evaluations of the measurements were performed with Wilks' Lambda test for parametric variables and Friedman test for nonparametric variables. Multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction or Dunn-Bonferroni post-hoc tests were done. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The SNB angle increased significantly in T3 compared to T1 (p<0.05). The ANB angle decreased in T3 compared to T1 (p<0.05). The U1-NA distance decreased in both T2 and T3 compared to T1 (p<0.001). The U6-PTV distance increased significantly in both T2 and T3 compared to T1 and in T3 compared to T2 (p<0.001). The CLMD distance increased significantly in both T2 (p<0.01) and T3 (p<0.001) compared to T1 and in T3 compared to T2 (p<0.05). The DC distance increased in both T2 and T3 compared to T1 and in T3 compared to T2 (p<0.001). The CL1 distance significantly increased in T3 compared to T1 (p<0.05).
Conclusion: An increase was observed in the maxillary posterior space due to premolar extraction. The increase in the mandibular posterior space was less than that in the maxillary posterior space. Retraction of maxillary incisors and mesial movement of maxillary molars were observed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Posterior space, premolar extraction, Orthodontics

Üst birinci premolar çekiminin maksiller ve mandibular posterior boşluğa etkisinin değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Üst birinci premolar çekiminin maksiller ve mandibular posterior boşluğa olan etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmanın materyalini, dişsel Sınıf II maloklüzyona sahip, üst iki birinci premolar çekimi ile sabit apareylerle tedavi edilmiş 20 bireyin tedavi öncesi (T1), sonrası (T2) ve pekiştirme sonrası (T3) lateral sefalometrik radyografileri oluşturdu. Lateral sefalometrik radyografiler üzerinde, yedi boyutsal ve dört açısal ölçüm aynı yazar tarafından yapıldı. İstatistiksel analizde, sürekli sayısal değişkenlerin dağılımının normale yakın dağılıp dağılmadığı Shapiro-Wilk testiyle incelendi. Ölçüm ortalamalarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değişim olup olmadığı parametrik verilerde Wilks’in Lambda testi, nonparametrik verilerde ise Friedman testiyle incelenerek; Bonferroni düzeltmeli çoklu karşılaştırma ya da Dunn-Bonferroni post-hoc testler uygulandı. p<0.05 değeri anlamlı olarak kabul edildi.
Bulgular: SNB açısı T3’te T1’e göre anlamlı düzeyde arttığı bulundu (p<0.05). ANB açısı T3’te T1’e göre anlamlı düzeyde azaldığı bulundu (p<0.05). T1’e göre hem T2 hem de T3’te U1-NA mesafesinin anlamlı düzeyde azaldığı bulundu (p<0.001). T1’e göre hem T2 hem de T3’te ve T2’ye göre T3’te U6-PTV mesafesinin anlamlı düzeyde arttığı bulundu (p<0.001). T1’e göre hem T2 (p<0.01) hem de T3’te (p<0.001) ve T2’ye göre T3’te CLMD (p<0.05) mesafesinin anlamlı düzeyde arttığı bulundu. T1’e göre hem T2 hem de T3’te ve T2’ye göre T3’te DC mesafesinin anlamlı düzeyde arttığı bulundu (p<0.001). CL1 mesafesi T3’te T1’e göre anlamlı düzeyde artmış bulundu (p<0.05).
Sonuç: Maksiller posterior boşlukta premolar çekimine bağlı olarak artış izlenmiştir. Mandibular posterior boşlukta izlenen artışın maksiller posterior boşluktan daha az olduğu görülmüştür. Maksiller kesici dişlerde retraksiyon ve maksiller molarlarda meziyalizasyon hareketi izlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Posterior boşluk, Premolar çekimi, Ortodonti

Kaynakça

• Chen LL, Xu TM, Jiang JH, Zhang XZ, Lin JX. Longitudinal changes in mandibular arch posterior space in adolescents with normal occlusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:187-93.
• Miclotte A, Grommen B, Cadenas de Llano-Pérula M, Verdonck A, Jacobs R, Willems G. The effect of first and second premolar extractions on third molars: A retrospective longitudinal study. J Dent 2017;61:55-66.
• Begtrup A, Grønastøð H á, Christensen IJ, Kjær I. Predicting lower third molar eruption on panoramic radiographs after cephalometric comparison of profile and panoramic radiographs. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:460-6.
• Björk A, Jensen E, Palling M. Mandibular growth and third molar impaction. Acta Odontol Scand 1956;14:231-72.
• Kandasamy S, Woods MG. Is orthodontic treatment without premolar extractions always non-extraction treatment? Aust Dent J 2005;50:146-51.
• Saysel MY, Meral GD, Kocadereli İ, Taşar F. The effects of first premolar extractions on third molar angulations. Angle Orthod 2005;75:719-22.
• Türköz Ç, Ulusoy Ç. Effect of premolar extraction on mandibular third molar impaction in young adults. Angle Orthod 2013;83:572-7.
• Brezulier D, Fau V, Sorel O. Influence of orthodontic premolar extraction therapy on the eruption of the third molars: A systematic review of the literature. J Am Dent Assoc 2017;148:903-12.
• Azizi F, Shahidi-Zandi V. Effect of different types of dental anchorage following first premolar extraction on mandibular third molar angulation. Int Orthod 2018;16:82-90.
• Artun J, Thalib L, Little RM. Third molar angulation during and after treatment of adolescent orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:590-6.
• Elsey MJ, Rock WP. Influence of orthodontic treatment on development of third molars. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;38:350-3.
• Kim TW, Artun J, Behbehani F, Artese F. Prevalence of third molar impaction in orthodontic patients treated nonextraction and with extraction of 4 premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:138-45.
• Behbehani F, Artun J, Thalib L. Prediction of mandibular third-molar impaction in adolescent orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:47-55.
• Bozkaya E, Kaygısız E, Tortop T, Güray Y,Yüksel S. Mandibular posterior space in class II division 1 and 2 malocclusion in various age groups. J Orofac Orthop 2020:81:249-57.
• Nahidh M, Al-Jarad AF, Aziz ZH. The reliability of AutoCAD program in cephalometric analysis in comparison with pre-programmed cephalometric analysis software. Iraqi Dent J 2012;34:35-40.
• Tortop T, Kaygisiz E, Erkun S, Yuksel S. Treatment with facemask and removable upper appliance versus modified tandem traction bow appliance: the effects on mandibular space. Eur J Orthod 2018;40:372-7.
• Keykubat A, Üçem TT, Yüksel AS, Tuncer C, Taner RL. Lateral sefalometrik ölçümlerin ve dijitasyonlarının tekrarlanabilirliği. Türk Ortod Derg 2004;17:75-82.
• Ochoa BK, Nanda RS. Comparison of maxillary and mandibular growth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:148-59
• Gomes AS, Lima EM. Mandibular growth during adolescence. Angle Orthod 2006;76:786-90.
• Bishara SE, Jamison JE, Peterson LC, DeKock WH. Longitudinal changes in standing height and mandibular parameters between the ages of 8 and 17 years. Am J Orthod 1981;80:115-35.
• Kim TK, Kim JT, Mah J, Yang WS, Baek SH. First or second premolar extraction effects on facial vertical dimension. Angle Orthod 2005;75:177-82.
• Scott Conley R, Jernigan C. Soft tissue changes after upper premolar extraction in Class II camouflage therapy. Angle Orthod 2006;76:59-65.
• Amirabadi GE, Mirzaie M, Kushki Sm, Olyaee P. Cephalometric evaluation of soft tissue changes after extraction of upper first premolars in class ΙΙ div 1 patients. J Clin Exp Dent 2014;6:e539-45.
• Paquette DE, Beattie JR, Johnston 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.
• Janson G, Mendes LM, Junqueira CHZ, Garib DG. Soft-tissue changes in Class II malocclusion patients treated with extractions: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:631-7.
• de Almeida-Pedrin RR, Henriques JFC, de Almeida RR, de Almeida MR, McNamara JA. Effects of the pendulum appliance, cervical headgear, and 2 premolar extractions followed by fixed appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:833-42.
• Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:302-9.
• Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston LE. Johnston Jr. The effects of premolar-extraction: a long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut” extraction and nonextraction Class II patients. Angle Orthod 1993;63:257-72.