Cargando…

Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes in class II subdivision treatment with asymmetric extraction protocols

BACKGROUND: This study cephalometrically compared the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes consequent to one and three-premolar extraction protocols of class II subdivision malocclusion treatment. METHODS: A sample of 126 lateral cephalometric radiographs from 63 patients was selected and divided i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Janson, Guilherme, Lenza, Eduardo Beaton, Francisco, Rodolfo, Aliaga-Del Castillo, Aron, Garib, Daniela, Lenza, Marcos Augusto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712505/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29199373
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0193-x
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study cephalometrically compared the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes consequent to one and three-premolar extraction protocols of class II subdivision malocclusion treatment. METHODS: A sample of 126 lateral cephalometric radiographs from 63 patients was selected and divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 31 type 1 class II subdivision malocclusion patients treated with asymmetric extractions of two maxillary premolars and one mandibular premolar on the class I side, with an initial mean age of 13.58 years. Group 2 consisted of 32 type 2 class II subdivision malocclusion patients treated with asymmetric extraction of one maxillary first premolar on the class II side, with an initial mean age of 13.98 years. t test was used for intergroup comparison at the pre- and posttreatment stages and to compare the treatment changes. RESULTS: Group 1 had greater maxillomandibular sagittal discrepancy reduction and greater maxillary first molar extrusion. Group 2 had mandibular incisor labial inclination and protrusion, and group 1 had mandibular incisor lingual inclination and retraction. Maxillary molar asymmetry increased in group 2, while mandibular molar asymmetry increased in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment changes produced by these two class II subdivision protocols are different to adequately satisfy the different needs for types 1 and 2 class II subdivision malocclusions.