medigraphic.com
Órgano Ofical de la Facultad de Estomatología de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla

2024, Number 78

<< Back Next >>

Oral 2024; 25 (78)

Long-term study of Class I and Class II premolar extraction treatment: Analysis of stability and relapse

Gómez Palacio-Gastélum M, Cardiel-Ríos SA, Vargas-Chávez N, Tremillo-Maldonado OA, Estrada-Nevárez MO

Language: English
References: 26
Page: 2316-2321
PDF size: 138.41 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. The purpose of this investigation was to compare cuspid and first molar width of 90 patients treated with the standard edgewise technique. Records were evaluated from pretreatment to post treatment and from post treatment to post retention periods with a 13.74 years’ interval and from post retention to pretreatment. Methodology. Dental casts from 26 Class I and 64 Class II patients who had 4 premolars extracted were evaluated during pretreatment, post treatment and post retention periods. Pretreatment records were taken at average ages of 13.94, post treatment records at 16.85 and post retention records at 30.49. Dental casts were digitized and measured by cast analysis, which included intercuspid and intermolar distances. Results. At post treatment period, minimal expansion on mandibular and maxillary cuspids was observed; maxillary and mandibular molars were constricted. All four measurements continued to decrease after the retention period. Conclusions. These findings suggest that long-term intercanine widths slightly decrease towards pretreatment values for both maxillary arches after 13.74 years post retention; upper and lower cuspids widths return to its near initial measurement. Furthermore, standard edgewise technique produces minimal expansion of canines which in turn is a major contributor to increase, maintain or reduce Little’s Irregularity Index.


REFERENCES

  1. Boley JC. Review of the literature on post retention stability ofmandibular incisors. J Charles Tweed Int Found. 2007; 6: 13-6.

  2. Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bondedlingual retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1991; 25(10): 619-30.

  3. Peck S. Extractions, retention and stability: the search for orthodontictruth. Eur J Orthod. 2017; 39(2): 109-15.doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjx004.

  4. Fleming PS. Orthodontic treatment planning: can we plan forstability? Br Dent J. 2021; 230(11): 717-21.

  5. Abu Arqub S, Al-Moghrabi D, Tsichlaki A, Sanders D, UribeF. The dark side of fixed retainers: Case series. Am J OrthodDentofacial Orthop. 2023 Sep; 164(3): e72-e88. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.06.009.

  6. Peck S. The current fashion of nonextraction dental arch expansionin orthodontics: A critique. Semin Orthod. 2012; 18(2):126-27.

  7. Kaplan H. The logic of modern retention procedures. Am J OrthodDentofacial Orthop. 1988; 93(4): 325-40.

  8. Lenz GJ, Woods MG. Incisal changes and orthodontic stability.Angle Orthod. 1999; 69(5): 424-32.

  9. Franklin S, Rossouw E, Woodside DG, Boley JC. Searchingfor predictors of long-term stability. Semin Orthod. 2013; 19(4):279-92.

  10. De la Cruz A, Sampson P, Little RM, Artun J, Shapiro PA.Long-term changes in arch form after orthodontic treatmentand retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107(5):518-30.

  11. Al-Nadawi M, Kravitz ND, Hansa I, Makki L, Ferguson DJ, VaidNR. Effect of clear aligner wear protocol on the efficacy of toothmovement: A randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2021;91(2): 157-63.

  12. Bayirli B, Vaden JL, Johnston LE. Long-term mandibular skeletaland dental effects of standard edgewise treatment. Am J OrthodDentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144(5): 682-90.

  13. Tien R, Patel V, Chen T, Lavrin I, Naoum S, Lee RJH, GoonewardeneMS. The predictability of expansion with Invisalign: Aretrospective cohort study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2023; 163(1): 47-53.

  14. Upadhyay M, Arqub SA. Biomechanics of clear aligners: hiddentruths & first principles. J World Fed Orthod. 2022; 11(1):12-21.

  15. Houle JP, Piedade L, Todescan R Jr, Pinheiro FHL. The predictabilityof transverse changes with Invisalign. Angle Orthod.2017; 87(1): 19-24.

  16. Haouili N, Kravitz ND, Vaid NR, Ferguson DJ, Makki L. HasInvisalign improved? A prospective follow-up study on the efficacyof tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod DentofacialOrthop. 2020; 158(3): 420-25.

  17. Paquette DE, Beattie JR, Johnston LE Jr. A long-term comparisonof nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapyin “borderline” Class II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1992; 102(1): 1-14.

  18. Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston LE Jr. The effects of premolar-extraction:a long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut”extraction and nonextraction Class II patients. Angle Orthod.

  19. 1993; 63(4): 257-72.19. Merrifield LL. Differential diagnosis. Semin Orthod. 1996; 2(4):241-53.

  20. Little RM. The Irregularity Index: A quantitative score of mandibularanterior alignment. Am J Orthod. 1975; 68(5): 554-63.

  21. Vaden JL, Harris EF, Gardner RLZ. Relapse revisited. Am JOrthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111(5): 543-53.

  22. Blake M, Bibby K. Retention and stability: a review of theliterature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114(3):299-306.

  23. Bowman SJ. More than lip service: facial esthetics in orthodontics.J Am Dent Assoc. 1999; 30(8): 1173-81.

  24. Strang RH. The fallacy of denture expansion as a treatmentprocedure. Angle Orthod. 1949; 19(1): 12-22.

  25. BeGole EA, Sadowsky C. Methodologies for evaluating longtermstability of dental relationships after orthodontic treatment.Semin Orthod. 1999; 5(3): 142-50.

  26. Sinclair PM, Little RM. Maturation of untreated normal occlusions.Am J Orthod. 1983; 83(2): 114-23.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com