Spätergebnisse nach kieferorthopädischer Extraktionstherapie

Longitudinal evaluation of extraction space closure, at final, medium and long-term, and its association with the adopted protocol, in patients treated in the last 40 years, with several initial malocclusions

“…Nonetheless, studies reporting open spaces at the end of treatment and relating the difficult to obtain only cases with closed spaces to the samples are common and frequent in the literature. 13,16,30,39,70 There are basically three intraoral methods to close extraction spaces: coil springs, reciprocal dental movement with elastics and unilateral movement with absolute anchorage. [71][72][73] All these methods were only subject on the attention and dedication of the orthodontist.…”

“…11,16,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Even though no isolated determinant factor was appointed as direct cause to hinder space closure during the treatment or to compromise its stability after closing, it is fact that the reopening could occur and it can vary from fractions of one to several millimeters. 11 Thus, once observed, since the early days of Orthodontics, the high prevalence of open spaces at the end of treatment, 14,[28][29][30] , as well as, the tendency of relapse to the initial dental positions, 13,16,24,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] it is essential to evaluate the actual prevalence of space closures at the end of treatment and of relapse when extractions are performed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate and quantify extraction space remaining rate and its behavior at the end of treatment, and at the short-and long-term posttreatment stages, in orthodontic patients treated with extractions.…”