Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2022-04-28
Abstract Views: 139
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 183
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v152i4.761
Issue
Vol. 152 No. 4 (2022)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Hồng, V. T. T., Thảo, Đỗ L. P., & Phương , N. T. T. . (2022). The changes in dentoalveolar after treatment class II devision I with extraction of four premolars. Journal of Medical Research, 152(4), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v152i4.761

The changes in dentoalveolar after treatment class II devision I with extraction of four premolars

Vo Thi Thuy Hong, Do Le Phuong Thao, Nguyen Thi Thu Phuong

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study determined the dental and dentoalveolar changes on the cephalometrics of Class II, division 1 malocclusion patients with four premolars extraction. 31 pairs of pre- and post-treatment cephalometrics of Class II, division 1 malocclusion patients with four premolars extraction were evaluated. After treatment, the angular measurements U1-SN and L1-MP decreased by 10.19 ± 9.070 and 4.53 ± 7.310, respectively. The upper and lower incisors retraction express by the linear measurements Is-APog and Ii-APog, which decreased by 5.66 ± 2.95 mm and 3.45 ± 2.44 mm, respectively. Overjet decreased significantly by 3.50 ± 1.90 mm. Thus, after treatment of class II devision 1 with extracting 4 premolars, the upper and lower incisors shown the dramatic changes, they were uprighted and retracted.

Article Details

Keywords

Class II division 1, extraction of premolars, cephalometrics.

References

1. Bishara SE. Mandibular changes in persons with untreated and treated Class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(6):661-673. doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70227-6
2. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics/Proffit WR, Fields Henry W., Sarver David M.–5th Edition.–St. Louis: Mosby. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
3. Burrow SJ. The Impact of Extractions on Facial and Smile Aesthetics. Seminars in Orthodontics. 2012;18(3):202-209. doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2012.04.005
4. Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston Jr LE. The effects of premolar-extraction: a long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut” extraction and nonextraction Class II patients. The Angle Orthodontist. 1993;63(4):257-272.
5. Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2009;135(3):302-309.
6. Lai EHH, Yao CCJ, Chang JZC, Chen I, Chen YJ. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(5):636-645. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.017
7. Park HM, Kim BH, Yang IH, Baek SH. Preliminary three-dimensional analysis of tooth movement and arch dimension change of the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with first premolar extraction: conventional anchorage vs. mini-implant anchorage. The Korean Journal of Orthodontics. 2012;42(6):280-290.
8. Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR, Zaher AR. Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in Class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107(1):28-37. doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70154-0
9. Hayashida H, Ioi H, Nakata S, Takahashi I, Counts AL. Effects of retraction of anterior teeth and initial soft tissue variables on lip changes in Japanese adults. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2011;33(4):419-426.
10. Huang JC, King G, Kapila S. Biologic Mechanisms in Orthodontic Tooth Movement. In: Biomechanics and Esthetic Strategies in Clinical Orthodontics. Elsevier; 2005:17-37. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7216-0196-0.50007-2