Subscribe to RSS
Evaluation of Treatment Changes in the Maxillary Intercanine and Intermolar Width in Patients with Various Malocclusions: A Study Model Analysis
Introduction Since extraction and nonextraction is a debatable topic to date, its effects on the changes in the dimension of arch width are unclear. Many investigators suggested that extraction would lead to arch collapse, whereas few others suggested that such changes in dimension would not occur.
Aim and Objectives To evaluate the changes in the intercanine and intermolar width in premolar extraction cases in class I and class II div 1 malocclusion cases.
Materials and Methods The study included pretreatment and posttreatment study models of 25 patients (14 with class I malocclusion, 11 with class II division 1 malocclusion). Intercanine and intermolar widths were measured and evaluated for both the malocclusions. The difference posttreatment intercanine width and intermolar width between class I and class II division 1 malocclusion were also assessed. The values obtained were subjected to statistical analysis.
Results There was no statistically significant difference in the intercanine and intermolar width pre- and posttreatment for class I patients, but there was a statistically significant difference in the intercanine and intermolar widths in class II patients. When class I and class II patients were compared for the parameters (intercanine/intermolar widths), it showed that there was no statistically significant difference.
12 December 2020 (online)
© 2020. Bhojia Dental College and Hospital affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
- 1 Germec-Cakan D, Taner TU, Akan S. Arch-width and perimeter changes in patients with borderline Class I malocclusion treated with extractions or without extractions with air-rotor stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (06) 734.e1-734.e7
- 2 McNamara L, McNamara JA Jr, Ackerman MB, Baccetti T. Hard- and soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133 (04) 491-499
- 3 Dierkes JM. The beauty of the face: an orthodontic perspective. J Am Dent Assoc 1987; (Spec No) 89E-95E
- 4 Zachrisson BU. et al. Maxillary expansion, long-term stability and smile esthetics. World J Orthod 2001; 2: 266-272
- 5 Gianelly AA. Arch width after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123 (01) 25-28
- 6 Boley JC, Mark JA, Sachdeva RC, Buschang PH. Long-term stability of class I premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124 (03) 277-287
- 7 Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston Jr LE. et al. The effects of premolar-extraction treatment: a long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut” extraction and nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 63: 257-272
- 8 Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Zaher AR. Treatment and posttreatment changes in patients with class II, division 1 malocclusion after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 111 (01) 18-27
- 9 Kim E, Gianelly AA. Extraction vs nonextraction: arch widths and smile esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003; 73 (04) 354-358