Tooth and lip responses to three commonly prescribed premolar extraction sequences: a review of recent research findings

Wholley, Christopher J.; Woods, Michael G.

doi:10.2478/aoj-2004-0015

Abstract

Aim: To review and discuss the dental and lateral profile soft tissue effects of orthodontic treatment involving three different premolar extraction patterns (4/4, 4/5, 5/5).

Method: The results of three previously reported studies were compared and discussed.

Results: Wide ranges of individual variation were found for the amounts of forward molar movement and incisor retraction, and for changes in the depths of upper and lower lip curves within all three premolar extraction pattern groups. The amount of pretreatment crowding and the residual space following initial alignment were the two factors most likely to influence changes in tooth positions during treatment. Treatment changes in the curvature of the lips were influenced by the pretreatment thickness of the lips at the vermilion level.

Conclusion: Factors other than simply the choice of premolar extraction pattern influence positional changes in the molars, incisors and lips during orthodontic treatment.

References

Baumrind S, Korn EL, Boyd RL, Maxwell R. The decision to extract: Part 1 – Interclinician agreement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 109: 297–309.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Weintraub JA, Vig PS, Brown C, Kowalski CJ. The prevalence of orthodontic extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96: 462–6.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nance HN. The removal of second premolars in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1949; 35: 685–96.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
de Castro N. Second-premolar extraction in clinical practice. Am J Orthod 1974; 65: 115–37.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Williams R, Hosila FJ. The effect of different extraction sites upon incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1976; 69: 388–410.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Steyn CL, du Preez RJ, Harris AM. Differential premolar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 480–6.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics. 3rd ed. St Louis: Mosby: 2003; p. 309–10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schwab DT. Extraction effects on the dental profile in borderline cases. Angle Orthod 1963; 33: 120–2.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Creekmore TD. Where teeth should be positioned in the face and jaws and how to get them there. J Clin Orthod 1997; 31: 586–608.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schoppe RJ. An analysis of second premolar extraction procedures. Angle Orthod 1964; 34: 292–302.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schwab DT. The borderline patient and tooth removal. Am J Orthod 1971; 59: 126–45.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Riedel RA. An analysis of dentofacial relationships. Am J Orthod 1957; 43: 103–19.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bloom LA. Perioral profile changes in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1961; 47: 371–9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rudee DA. Proportional profile changes concurrent with orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod 1964; 50: 421–34.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lew KK. Profile changes following orthodontic treatment of bimaxillary protrusion in adults with Begg appliance. Eur J Orthod 1989; 11: 375–81.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Diels RM, Kalra V, DeLoach N, Powers M, Nelson SS. Changes in soft tissue profile of African-Americans following extraction treatment. Angle Orthod 1995; 65: 285–92.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Shearn BN, Woods MG. An occlusal and cephalometric analysis of lower first and second premolar extraction effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 117: 351–61.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ong HB, Woods MG. An occlusal and cephalometric analysis of maxillary first and second premolar extraction effects. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 90–102.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wholley CJ, Woods MG. The effects of commonly prescribed premolar extraction sequences on the curvature of the upper and lower lips. Angle Orthod 2003; 73: 386–95.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Carter NE. First premolar extractions and fixed appliances in Class II division 1 malocclusion. Br J Orthod 1988; 15: 1–10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston LE. The effects of premolar-extraction: a long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut” extraction and nonextraction Class II patients. Angle Orthod 1993; 63: 257–72.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Saelens NA, De Smit AA. Therapeutic changes in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 225–36.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lai J, Ghosh J, Nanda RS. Effect of orthodontic therapy on the facial profile in long and short vertical facial patterns. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118: 505–13.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Subtelny JD. The soft tissue profile, growth and treatment changes. Angle Orthod 1961; 31: 105–22.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hershey HG. Incisor tooth retraction and subsequent profile change in postadolescent female patients. Am J Orthod 1972; 61: 45–54.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rains MD, Nanda R. Soft-tissue changes associated with maxillary incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982; 81: 481–8.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 91: 385–94.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Finnoy JP, Wisth PJ, Boe OE. Changes in soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1987; 9: 68–78.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Valentim ZL, Capelli J, Almeida MA, Bailey LJ. Incisor retraction and profile changes in adult patients. Int J Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1994; 9: 31–6.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Caplan MJ, Shivapuja PK. The effect of premolar extractions on the soft-tissue profile in adult African American females. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 129–36.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Oliver BM. The influence of lip thickness and strain on upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 141–9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bravo LA. Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment with four premolars extracted. Angle Orthod 1994; 64: 31–42.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nanda R. Biomechanical aspects of extraction versus non-extraction therapy. In: Bolender CJ, Bonnoure GM, Barat Y, eds. Extraction versus Non-extraction. Strasburg: Sid: 1995; 88–102.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Woods MG. Overbite correction and sagittal changes: late mixed-dentition treatment effects. Aust Orthod J 2001; 17: 69–80.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Woods MG. Lower incisor changes on basal bone and in relation to the lower face: combined growth and treatment effects in the late mixed-dentition. Aust Orthod J 2002; 18: 7–18.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Woods MG. Mandibular arch dimensional and positional changes in late mixed-dentition Class I and II treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 180–8.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moseling KP, Woods MG. Lip curve changes in females with premolar extraction or non-extraction treatment. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 51–62.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Tooth and lip responses to three commonly prescribed premolar extraction sequences: a review of recent research findings

Abstract

Paradigm

My account