Cephalometric comparison of maxillary second molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in patients with class II malocclusions

Donihue Waters, Edward Harris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This retrospective cephalometric study compared the nature of the skeletodental correction of maxillary second-molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in correcting Class II malocclusions. The sample comprised 50 Class II, deep-bite, low-angle adolescents; half were treated with maxillary second-molar extraction and half were treated without extraction. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed. Analysis relied primarily on the method of Lysle Johnston that evaluates sagittal changes in the teeth and supporting bones relative to the functional occlusal plane. All 18 cephalometric variables examined were statistically equivalent between the 2 groups at the start of treatment. In contrast, several skeletodental treatment changes differed significantly. The maxillary second-molar extraction group exhibited distal movement of the maxillary first molar (1.2 mm vs 0.0 mm), and there was greater flaring of the mandibular incisors in the nonextraction group (9.1° vs 3.5°). The upper incisor root was torqued lingually in both groups, but there was more anterior crown movement in the nonextraction group (2.0 mm vs 0.0 mm). Also, the extraction group finished active treatment 7 months sooner on average. Sagittal molar correction in the maxillary second-molar group was a result of distalizing in the maxillary arch, whereas anchorage was expended in the mandibular arch to correct the malocclusion in the nonextraction group. In properly selected Class II malocclusions, maxillary second-molar extraction is a viable alternative treatment choice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)608-613
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume120
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Fingerprint

Cephalometry
Malocclusion
Incisor
Overbite
Dental Occlusion
Therapeutics
Crowns
Tooth
Retrospective Studies
Bone and Bones

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

@article{5e73d5a5bc914b3fb815e5a8c2e37ed5,
title = "Cephalometric comparison of maxillary second molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in patients with class II malocclusions",
abstract = "This retrospective cephalometric study compared the nature of the skeletodental correction of maxillary second-molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in correcting Class II malocclusions. The sample comprised 50 Class II, deep-bite, low-angle adolescents; half were treated with maxillary second-molar extraction and half were treated without extraction. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed. Analysis relied primarily on the method of Lysle Johnston that evaluates sagittal changes in the teeth and supporting bones relative to the functional occlusal plane. All 18 cephalometric variables examined were statistically equivalent between the 2 groups at the start of treatment. In contrast, several skeletodental treatment changes differed significantly. The maxillary second-molar extraction group exhibited distal movement of the maxillary first molar (1.2 mm vs 0.0 mm), and there was greater flaring of the mandibular incisors in the nonextraction group (9.1° vs 3.5°). The upper incisor root was torqued lingually in both groups, but there was more anterior crown movement in the nonextraction group (2.0 mm vs 0.0 mm). Also, the extraction group finished active treatment 7 months sooner on average. Sagittal molar correction in the maxillary second-molar group was a result of distalizing in the maxillary arch, whereas anchorage was expended in the mandibular arch to correct the malocclusion in the nonextraction group. In properly selected Class II malocclusions, maxillary second-molar extraction is a viable alternative treatment choice.",
author = "Donihue Waters and Edward Harris",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1067/mod.2001.119805",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "608--613",
journal = "American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics",
issn = "0889-5406",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cephalometric comparison of maxillary second molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in patients with class II malocclusions

AU - Waters, Donihue

AU - Harris, Edward

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - This retrospective cephalometric study compared the nature of the skeletodental correction of maxillary second-molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in correcting Class II malocclusions. The sample comprised 50 Class II, deep-bite, low-angle adolescents; half were treated with maxillary second-molar extraction and half were treated without extraction. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed. Analysis relied primarily on the method of Lysle Johnston that evaluates sagittal changes in the teeth and supporting bones relative to the functional occlusal plane. All 18 cephalometric variables examined were statistically equivalent between the 2 groups at the start of treatment. In contrast, several skeletodental treatment changes differed significantly. The maxillary second-molar extraction group exhibited distal movement of the maxillary first molar (1.2 mm vs 0.0 mm), and there was greater flaring of the mandibular incisors in the nonextraction group (9.1° vs 3.5°). The upper incisor root was torqued lingually in both groups, but there was more anterior crown movement in the nonextraction group (2.0 mm vs 0.0 mm). Also, the extraction group finished active treatment 7 months sooner on average. Sagittal molar correction in the maxillary second-molar group was a result of distalizing in the maxillary arch, whereas anchorage was expended in the mandibular arch to correct the malocclusion in the nonextraction group. In properly selected Class II malocclusions, maxillary second-molar extraction is a viable alternative treatment choice.

AB - This retrospective cephalometric study compared the nature of the skeletodental correction of maxillary second-molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in correcting Class II malocclusions. The sample comprised 50 Class II, deep-bite, low-angle adolescents; half were treated with maxillary second-molar extraction and half were treated without extraction. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were analyzed. Analysis relied primarily on the method of Lysle Johnston that evaluates sagittal changes in the teeth and supporting bones relative to the functional occlusal plane. All 18 cephalometric variables examined were statistically equivalent between the 2 groups at the start of treatment. In contrast, several skeletodental treatment changes differed significantly. The maxillary second-molar extraction group exhibited distal movement of the maxillary first molar (1.2 mm vs 0.0 mm), and there was greater flaring of the mandibular incisors in the nonextraction group (9.1° vs 3.5°). The upper incisor root was torqued lingually in both groups, but there was more anterior crown movement in the nonextraction group (2.0 mm vs 0.0 mm). Also, the extraction group finished active treatment 7 months sooner on average. Sagittal molar correction in the maxillary second-molar group was a result of distalizing in the maxillary arch, whereas anchorage was expended in the mandibular arch to correct the malocclusion in the nonextraction group. In properly selected Class II malocclusions, maxillary second-molar extraction is a viable alternative treatment choice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0040750448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0040750448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mod.2001.119805

DO - 10.1067/mod.2001.119805

M3 - Article

VL - 120

SP - 608

EP - 613

JO - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

JF - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SN - 0889-5406

IS - 6

ER -