Advertisement

Factors affecting treatment decisions for Class I malocclusions

      Highlights

      • Increased overbite suggests nonextraction treatment.
      • Proclined maxillary and mandibular incisors, and procumbent upper lips favor extraction treatment.
      • Study findings will facilitate treatment planning for Class I malocclusions.

      Introduction

      Orthodontic treatment planning requires skill and expertise with considerable practice variations. The aims of this study were to review retrospectively the pretreatment records of patients with Class I malocclusion and to identify variables that could play a role in the treatment decision.

      Methods

      From the available records of 1500 orthdontic patients, the pretreatment records of 202 patients were selected at random. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and the surviving records were divided into extraction (n = 92) and nonextraction (n = 92) treatment groups. Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue measurements were obtained from pretreatment lateral cephalograms and dental casts of subjects with bilateral Class I molar relationships. Data were statistically analyzed by binary logistic regression tests.

      Results

      The results showed that the variables of lower anterior facial height, E-plane to upper lip, and maxillary and mandibular incisor inclinations were significantly increased in the extraction group (P <0.05), whereas spacing in the mandibular arch and increased overbite were statistically significant in the nonextraction treatment group (P <0.05). According to the model, the odds of nonextraction treatment are 1.29 and 1.24 times that of extraction treatment for every 1-mm increase in overbite and spacing in the mandibular arch, respectively.

      Conclusions

      Vertical facial pattern, overbite, mandibular tooth size-arch length discrepancy, lip position, and maxillary and mandibular incisor inclinations are a few of the important variables that should not be overlooked when planning orthodontic treatment. The findings of this study could facilitate the treatment planning process for patients with Class I malocclusion.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Graber T.M. Vanarsdall R.L. Vig K.L. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. Mosby, St Louis2005
        • Tweed C.H.
        Indications for the extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure.
        Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1944; 42: 22-45
        • Proffit W.R.
        • Fields H.W.
        • Sarver D.M.
        Contemporary orthodontics.
        Mosby Elsevier, St Louis2007
        • Peck S.
        • Peck H.
        Frequency of tooth extraction in orthodontic treatment.
        Am J Orthod. 1979; 76: 491-496
        • Weintraub J.A.
        • Vig P.S.
        • Brown C.
        • Kowalski C.J.
        The prevalence of orthodontic extractions.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 96: 462-466
        • O'Connor B.M.
        Contemporary trends in orthodontic practice: a national survey.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103: 163-170
        • Turpin D.L.
        Percentage swings in extraction frequencies.
        Angle Orthod. 1994; 64: 403
        • Jackson T.H.
        • Guez C.
        • Lin F.C.
        • Proffit W.R.
        • Ko C.C.
        Extraction frequencies at a university orthodontic clinic in the 21st century: demographic and diagnostic factors affecting the likelihood of extraction.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151: 456-462
        • Melgaço C.A.
        • Araújo M.T.
        Asymmetric extractions in orthodontics.
        Dental Press J Orthod. 2012; 17: 151-156
        • Murphy C.C.
        • Magness W.B.
        • English J.D.
        • Frazier-Bowers S.A.
        • Salas A.M.
        A longitudinal study of incremental expansion using a mandibular lip bumper.
        Angle Orthod. 2003; 73: 396-400
        • Salzmann J.A.
        An evaluation of extraction in orthodontics.
        Am J Orthod. 1965; 51: 928-929
        • Brandt S.
        • Safirstein G.R.
        Different extractions for different malocclusions.
        Am J Orthod. 1975; 68: 15-41
        • Baumrind S.
        • Korn E.L.
        • Boyd R.L.
        • Maxwell R.
        The decision to extract: part II. Analysis of clinicians' stated reasons for extraction.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109: 393-402
        • Konstantonis D.
        • Anthopoulou C.
        • Makou M.
        Extraction decision and identification of treatment predictors in Class I malocclusions.
        Prog Orthod. 2013; 19: 14-47
        • Erdinc A.E.
        • Nanda R.S.
        • Isiksal E.
        Relapse of anterior crowding in patients treated with extraction and nonextraction of premolars.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129: 775-784
        • Brodie A.G.
        • Downs W.B.
        • Goldstein A.
        • Myer E.
        Cephalometric appraisal of orthodontic results.
        Angle Orthod. 1938; 8: 261-265
        • Cole H.J.
        Certain results of extraction in the treatment of malocclusion.
        Angle Orthod. 1948; 18: 103-113
        • Freitas K.M.
        • Freitas M.R.
        • Henriques J.F.
        • Pinzan A.
        • Janson G.
        Postretention relapse of mandibular anterior crowding in patients treated without mandibular premolar extraction.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125: 480-487
        • Schulaf R.J.
        • Allen R.W.
        • Walters R.D.
        • Dreskin M.
        The mandibular dental arch: part I, lower incisor position.
        Angle Orthod. 1977; 47: 280-287
        • Sadowsky C.
        • Sakols El
        Long-term assessment of orthodontic relapse.
        Am J Orthod. 1982; 82: 456-463
        • Ricketts R.M.
        Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation.
        Am J Orthod. 1968; 54: 272-289
        • Travess H.
        • Roberts-Harry D.
        • Sandy J.
        Orthodontics. Part 8: extractions in orthodontics.
        Br Dent J. 2004; 196: 195-203
        • Garlington M.
        • Logan L.R.
        Vertical changes in high mandibular plane cases following enucleation of second premolars.
        Angle Orthod. 1990; 60: 263-267
        • Sangcharearn Y.
        • Ho C.
        Effect of incisor angulation on overjet and overbite in class II camouflage treatment. atypodont study.
        Angle Orthod. 2007; 77: 1011-1018
        • Paquette D.E.
        • Beattie J.R.
        • Johnston Jr., L.E.
        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
        • Bishara S.E.
        • Cummins D.M.
        • Jakobsen J.R.
        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
        • Guo Y.
        • Han X.
        • Xu H.
        • Ai D.
        • Zeng H.
        • Bai D.
        Morphological characteristics influencing the orthodontic extraction strategies for Angle’s class II division 1 malocclusions.
        Prog Orthod. 2014; 15: 44