Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(01): 227-233
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749366
Original Article

Vertical Skeletal Changes after Extraction and Nonextraction Orthodontic Treatment

Hafiza Z. Shafique
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Rumeesha Zaheer 
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Abdullah Jan
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Alaina T. Mughal 
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Rooma Shahid
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Fareena Ghaffar
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Tooba Zahoor
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Sundas Mehmood
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Ramsha Nawaz
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Safia Umar
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Mehak Hassan
1   Orthodontics Department, Armed Forces Institute of Dentistry, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
,
Muhammad A. Mudasser
2   Orthodontics Department, Dr. Ishrat ul Ibad Khan Institute of Health Sciences, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Due to the constant battle regarding the controversial topic of orthodontic extraction, this study aims to assess the changes in vertical dimensions of patients treated with premolar extractions compared with nonextraction orthodontic patients.

Materials and Methods A sample of 60 borderline patients were recruited and divided into extraction and nonextraction groups. Eleven pretreatment cephalometric measurements were recorded using WebCeph and patients were followed-up until the completion of treatment.

Statistical Analysis Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were made using paired t-test and two-sample independent t-test, respectively. The joint significance of differences was measured using F-tests.

Results The intragroup comparison revealed that in the extraction group, the vertical dimension was significantly increased posttreatment for four cephalometric measurements, that is, mandibular plane angle (p < 0.05), palatal plane angle (p < 0.05), Frankfort mandibular plane angle (p < 0.05), and y-axis (p < 0.05). In the comparison of the posttreatment values of both groups, the mean differences of the posttreatment values for sella nasion (SN)-gonion (Go)-gnathion (Gn) angle (p = 0.008), the total anterior (p = 0.050), and lower anterior facial heights (AFH; p = 0.011) were significantly higher. At the same time, the Jarabak ratio was significantly (p = 0.006) lower in the extraction group than in the nonextraction group.

Conclusion The increase in vertical dimension is significantly higher in the extraction group than in the nonextraction group which indicates a significant impact of orthodontic extraction on the vertical dimensions.

Keywords

orthodontic space closure - vertical dimensions - cephalometry/methods - artificial intelligence

Note

Informed consent was obtained from all patients.




Publication History

Article published online:
04 July 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Gkantidis N, Halazonetis DJ, Alexandropoulos E, Haralabakis NB. Treatment strategies for patients with hyperdivergent Class II division 1 malocclusion: is vertical dimension affected?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140 (03) 346-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bayram M, Özer M. Mandibular incisor extraction treatment of a class I malocclusion with bolton discrepancy: a case report. Eur J Dent 2007; 1 (01) 54-59
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kouvelis G, Dritsas K, Doulis I, Kloukos D, Gkantidis N. Effect of orthodontic treatment with 4 premolar extractions compared with nonextraction treatment on the vertical dimension of the face: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 154 (02) 175-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Witzig JW, Spahl TJ. The clinical management of basic maxillofacial orthopedic appliances. Hong Kong Year b Med; 1987. 1. 146
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Reynders RM. Orthodontics and temporomandibular disorders: a review of the literature (1966-1988). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97 (06) 463-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Benedicto EN, Kairalla SA, Oliveira GMS, Junior LRM, Rosário HD, Paranhos LR. Determination of vertical characteristics with different cephalometric measurements. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (01) 116-120
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jawale B, Rodrigues L, Patil T, Naik V, Nehete A, Narkhede S. Effect of asymmetric premolar extractions on smile aesthetics in a patient with severe crowding- a case report. SAR J Dent Oral Surg Med 2021; 2 (03) 36-43
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Uribe F, Nanda R. Mini-implants vs fixed functional appliances for treatment of young adult Class II female patients: a prospective clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2012; 82 (02) 294-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Levy PH. Clinical implications of mandibular repositioning and the concept of an alterable centric relation. Int J Orthod 1979; 17 (03) 6-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kim SJ, Kim KH, Yu HS, Baik HS. Dentoalveolar compensation according to skeletal discrepancy and overjet in skeletal Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145 (03) 317-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ramesh GC, Pradeep MC, Kumar GA, Girish KS, Suresh BS. Over-bite and vertical changes following first premolar extraction in high angle cases. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (06) 812-818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Beit P, Konstantonis D, Papagiannis A, Eliades T. Vertical skeletal changes after extraction and non-extraction treatment in matched class I patients identified by a discriminant analysis: cephalometric appraisal and Procrustes superimposition. Prog Orthod 2017; 18 (01) 44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Farrar WB, McCarty WL. A Clinical Outline of Temporomandibular Joint Diagnosis and Treatment. Normandie Study Group for TMJ Dysfunction; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Web-based Orthodontic & Orthognathic Platform. Accessed October 25, 2021 at: https://www.webceph.com
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Yassir YA, Salman AR, Nabbat SA. The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2021; 17 (01) 57-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hwang HW, Park JH, Moon JH. et al. Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks: part 2- might it be better than human?. Angle Orthod 2020; 90 (01) 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118 (05) 535-540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Staggers JA. Vertical changes following first premolar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 105 (01) 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Silva Campos MJ, Caetano PL, Tanaka OM, de Faria FR, Vitral RWF. Vertical dimension of the face: Result of four premolar extractions or posterior teeth position. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019; 155 (03) 305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kirschneck C, Proff P, Reicheneder C, Lippold C. Short-term effects of systematic premolar extraction on lip profile, vertical dimension and cephalometric parameters in borderline patients for extraction therapy–a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20 (04) 865-874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kim TK, Kim JT, Mah J, Yang WS, Baek SH. First or second premolar extraction effects on facial vertical dimension. Angle Orthod 2005; 75 (02) 177-182
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hayasaki SM, Castanha Henriques JF, Janson G, de Freitas MR. Influence of extraction and nonextraction orthodontic treatment in Japanese-Brazilians with class I and class II division 1 malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127 (01) 30-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kumari M, Fida M. Vertical facial and dental arch dimensional changes in extraction vs. non-extraction orthodontic treatment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2010; 20 (01) 17-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Meghil MM, Rajpurohit P, Awad ME, McKee J, Shahoumi LA, Ghaly M. Artificial intelligence in dentistry. Dent Rev 2022; 2 (01) 100009
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Carrillo-Perez F, Pecho OE, Morales JC. et al. Applications of artificial intelligence in dentistry: a comprehensive review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022; 34 (01) 259-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Dwivedi S, Sonwane S, Chokotiya H, Patel P, Gupta G. Effect of premolar extractions on facial vertical dimension-a cephalometric study. Indian J Orthod Dentofac Res 2016; 2 (04) 194-196
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Alabdullah M, Saltaji H, Abou-Hamed H, Youssef M. Association between facial growth pattern and facial muscle activity: A prospective cross-sectional study. Int Orthod 2015; 13 (02) 181-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar