Class II treatment efficiency in maxillary premolar extraction and nonextraction protocols

Janson, Guilherme; Barros, Sérgio Estelita; Freitas, Marcos Roberto de; Henriques, José Fernando Castanha; Pinzan, Arnaldo

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.031

Cited by 74 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients who were treated with the extraction of two upper premolars showed better results than nonextraction patients. This conclusion supports Janson's et al 14 study, which demonstrated that a more efficient Class II treatment was achieved with the extraction of two premolars than with a nonextraction protocol. In this manner, excellent occlusal results can be accomplished in treating the Class II malocclusion of patients who present with discrepant facial patterns, provided that a treatment protocol is used which enhances the correction efficiency of the Class II anteroposterior relationship (Fig.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Accordingly, a higher success rate in Class II treatment can be achieved with only two upper extractions. However, in spite of the fact that a Class II malocclusion treatment protocol with two upper extractions has proved more efficient 5,14,15 and more likely to provide a Class I cuspid relationship 6,15 by affording an adequate anterior guide and a reasonable posterior occlusal relationship, some authors still persist in the mistaken belief that finishing a treatment with a complete Class II molar relationship can be detrimental to a functional occlusion 21 .…”

Section: Literature Review Cephalometric Features Of Class II Malocclmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Regardless of the facial pattern, however, lower arch extractions should not be performed when treating Class II if the sole purpose is to correct cephalometric discrepancy or to control vertical dimension since the difficulty in correcting anteroposterior discrepancy between the arches is compounded in comparison with the treatment protocol involving the extraction of two upper premolars 5,6,15,16 . On the other hand, if the treatment protocol is conducted with no extractions the need to move upper molars towards distal not only undermines vertical dimension control 20 , but it also makes it harder to accomplish the correction of anteroposterior discrepancy between the arches than would be the case if the treatment involving two upper extraction were put in place 14 .…”

Section: Impact Of Facial Pattern On Class II Malocclusion Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1). Recent studies, however, have shown that given the same age and degree of severity a Class II malocclusion treatment protocol with the extraction of two upper premolars provides superior efficiency than the protocols involving extraction of four premolars 5,8 or nonextraction 14 . Therefore, it is safe to assert that the choice of a treatment protocol to correct Class II malocclusion constitutes one of the few approaches -if not the only one -professionals can resort to in order to influence the success rate of treatments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, Class II treatment with the extraction of two upper premolars both enables a greater vertical dimension control 20 -since it does not require upper molars to be moved distally -and favors the correction of anteroposterior discrepancy between the arches, compared with Class II treatment without extractions or with four extractions 8,14 . Thus, it could be conjectured that the occlusal results of Class II treatment involving two upper premolar extractions will tend to be less influenced by facial pattern since it would allow for a higher success rate even in vertical facial pattern cases.…”

Section: Impact Of Facial Pattern On Class II Malocclusion Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Variáveis relevantes no tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II

Janson

Barros

Simão

et al. 2009

Rev. Dent. Press Ortodon. Ortop. Facial

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of orthodontic Class II malocclusion treatment can be influenced by inherent characteristics such as patient age, malocclusion severity and degree of compliance, or even by factors regarding the orthodontist's subjective preference such as the treatment protocol. Basically, Class II treatment protocols involve nonextraction or extraction of two or four premolars. However, a greater treatment success rate can be expected with the extraction protocol of two maxillary premolars, regardless of the skeletal pattern or the amount of maxillomandibular anteroposterior discrepancy. According to this review, it was concluded that Class II malocclusion treatment results are strongly influenced by the treatment protocol, while skeletal characteristics do not seem to exert significant influence. AbstractKeywords: Malocclusion. Class II. Cephalometry. Tooth extraction.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Literature Review Cephalometric Features Of Class II Malocclmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Impact Of Facial Pattern On Class II Malocclusion Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact Of Facial Pattern On Class II Malocclusion Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Variáveis relevantes no tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II

Janson

Barros

Simão

et al. 2009

Rev. Dent. Press Ortodon. Ortop. Facial

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Outcome differences after orthodontic camouflage treatment in hypo- and hyperdivergent patients – A retrospective cephalometric investigation

Hourfar,

Kinzinger,

Frye

et al. 2023

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare differences in outcome in skeletal and dental parameters in hypo- and hyperdivergent Class II patients after extraction of upper first premolars and comprehensive orthodontic treatment. Materials and methods 37 Class-II-patients with dental camouflage treatment were divided into a hypo- (n = 18) or a hyperdivergent (n = 19) group depending on the mandibular plane angle (hypo: < 34° or hyper: ≥ 34°). Lateral cephalograms were available before (T1) and after (T2) treatment and were analyzed with customized measurements. Data from a growth survey served as a control and were used to calculate the actual treatment effect. Data were analyzed by one-sample Student’s t-tests and independent Student’s t-tests. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results The measurements showed similar changes in both groups. The effects were mainly dentoalveolar. Hypodivergent patients showed an almost equal increase in anterior and posterior facial height, while hyperdivergent patients only showed an increase in anterior facial height. Conclusions In hyperdivergent patients, the anterior facial height increases despite camouflage treatment. This indicates a tendency towards bite opening and backward rotation of the mandible. Hypodivergent patients do not experience deepening of the bite. Clinical relevance In hyperdivergent patients with upper first premolars extraction the anterior facial height increased differently than in hypodivergent patients. This should be considered if a bite opening is a possible contraindication to treatment.

show abstract

Orthodontic treatment of severe crowding malocclusion with temporomandibular joint closed-lock by means of multi-loop edgewise archwire: a case report

Kawagoe

Akimoto

Sato

2010

J. Stomat. Occ. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this case report, crowding malocclusion with TMJ (temporomandibular joint) closed lock was treated with modified offset archwire (MOAW) and multi-loop edgewise archwire (MEAW). Owing to the TMD (temporomandibular disorder) problems, we decided to extract the lower third and upper second molars. Crowding in the upper and lower arches was successfully treated with the improvement of TMD. Condylar movement was improved by orthodontic treatment with DY shift noted on condylographic evaluation. Two years after the treatment, the occlusion was fairly stable.

show abstract

Class II treatment efficiency in maxillary premolar extraction and nonextraction protocols

Cited by 74 publications

References 45 publications

Variáveis relevantes no tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II

Variáveis relevantes no tratamento da má oclusão de Classe II

Outcome differences after orthodontic camouflage treatment in hypo- and hyperdivergent patients – A retrospective cephalometric investigation

Orthodontic treatment of severe crowding malocclusion with temporomandibular joint closed-lock by means of multi-loop edgewise archwire: a case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About