SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cumhuriyet Dental Journal / 2019 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 4

COMPARISON OF ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT WITH DIFFERENT PREMOLAR EXTRACTION MODALITIES IN TERMS OF SOFT TISSUE PROFILE

Farklı Premolar Çekimli Ortodontik Tedavi Yöntemlerinin Yumuşak Doku Profili Bakımından Karşılaştırılması

Hande GÖRÜCÜ COŞKUNER
Ezgi ATİK
Tülin TANER
Pages
390–401
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

To determine changes due to treatment, andto compare differences among the groups, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank andKruskal-Wallis tests were performed, respectively.Results: Mx1-SN, Mx1-FH, Mx1-NA, IMPA and Md1-NB values decreasedsignificantly in Groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To evaluate the differences in changes in the soft tissue profileand dentoskeletal parameters between different premolar extraction and nonextraction treatment modalities.Materials and Methods: Fifty patients with skeletal Class I malocclusionwere divided into three groups.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Group 1 consisted of 17 patients (meanage:16.76±1.68 years) treated with maxillary and mandibular first premolarextractions; Group 2 consisted of 16 patients (mean age:15.81±1.19 years)treated with maxillary and mandibular second premolar extractions, andGroup 3 consisted of 17 patients (mean age:16.29±1.15 years) treated withnon-extraction protocol.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:To determine changes due to treatment, andto compare differences among the groups, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank andKruskal-Wallis tests were performed, respectively.Results: Mx1-SN, Mx1-FH, Mx1-NA, IMPA and Md1-NB values decreasedsignificantly in Groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the differences in changes in the soft tissue profileand dentoskeletal parameters between different premolar extraction and nonextraction treatment modalities.Materials and Methods: Fifty patients with skeletal Class I malocclusionwere divided into three groups. Group 1 consisted of 17 patients (meanage:16.76±1.68 years) treated with maxillary and mandibular first premolarextractions; Group 2 consisted of 16 patients (mean age:15.81±1.19 years)treated with maxillary and mandibular second premolar extractions, andGroup 3 consisted of 17 patients (mean age:16.29±1.15 years) treated withnon-extraction protocol. From the pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1)cephalometric radiographs, 13 measurements for dentoskeletal and 15 for softtissue parameters were assessed. To determine changes due to treatment, andto compare differences among the groups, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank andKruskal-Wallis tests were performed, respectively.Results: Mx1-SN, Mx1-FH, Mx1-NA, IMPA and Md1-NB values decreasedsignificantly in Groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (p

Özet

Amaç: Farklı premolar çekimli ve çekimsiz tedavi yöntemleri arasında yumuşak doku profili ve dentoiskeletsel parametrelerdeki değişikliklerin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: İskelet Sınıf I maloklüzyona sahip 50 hasta üç gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1, maksiller ve mandibular birinci premolar çekimiyle tedavi edilen 17 hastadan (ortalama yaş:16,76±1,68 yıl); Grup 2, maksiller ve mandibular ikinci premolar çekimiyle tedavi edilen 16 hastadan (ortalama yaş:15,81±1,19 yıl) ve Grup 3, çekimsiz protokol ile tedavi edilen 17 hastadan (ortalama yaş:16,29±1,15 yıl) oluşuyordu. Tedavi öncesi (T0) ve tedavi sonrası (T1) lateral sefalometrik radyograflar değerlendirildi. Dentoiskeletsel parametreler için 13, yumuşak doku parametreleri için 15 ölçüm yapıldı. Tedaviye bağlı yumuşak doku ve dentoiskeletsel değişiklikleri belirlemek ve gruplar arasındaki farklılıkları karşılaştırmak için sırasıyla Wilcoxon İşaretli Sıra ve Kruskal-Wallis testleri uygulandı. Bulgular: Mx1-SN, Mx1-FH, Mx1-NA, IMPA ve Md1-NB değerleri Grup 1 ve 2'de Grup 3'e göre anlamlı olarak azaldı (p

🔖

Cite This Article

COŞKUNER, H. G., ATİK, E., TANER, T. (2022). COMPARISON OF ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT WITH DIFFERENT PREMOLAR EXTRACTION MODALITIES IN TERMS OF SOFT TISSUE PROFILE. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 4, 390–401. https://ajindex.com/articles/476961

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR. 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
  2. Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Dandajena TC. Profile changes of patients treated with and without premolar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:324-331
  3. 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;137:734 e1-7; discussion-5
  4. 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;20:865-874
  5. Herzog C, Konstantonis D, Konstantoni N, Eliades T. Arch-width changes in extraction vs nonextraction treatments in matched Class I borderline malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:735-743
  6. Weyrich C, Lisson JA. The effect of premolar extractions on incisor position and soft tissue profile in patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. J Orofac Orthop 2009;70:128-138
  7. Germec D, Taner TU. Effects of extraction and nonextraction therapy with air-rotor stripping on facial esthetics in postadolescent borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:539-549
  8. Lim HJ, Ko KT, Hwang HS. Esthetic impact of premolar extraction and nonextraction treatments on Korean borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:524-531
  9. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A, Demir A. The influence of extraction treatment on Holdaway soft-tissue measurements. Angle Orthod 2004;74:167- 173. 10.Bowman SJ, Johnston LE, Jr. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle Orthod 2000;70:3-10
  10. Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:220-230
  11. Young TM, Smith RJ. Effects of orthodontics on the facial profile: a comparison of changes during nonextraction and four premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103:452-458
  12. Pearson LE. Vertical control in treatment of patients having backward-rotational growth tendencies. Angle Orthod 1978;48:132-140
  13. Schudy