Treatment outcome of class II malocclusion therapy including extraction of maxillary first molars: a cephalometric comparison between normodivergent and hyperdivergent facial types.

Background: The dentoalveolar component of a Class II division 1 malocclusion can be orthodontically treated either with extractions or by distalization of the molars. This study aimed to compare skeletal, dentoalveolar and profile changes in normodivergent and hyperdivergent Class II Division I growing patients orthodontically treated with fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extraction. Methods: Sixty-four patients treated orthodontically with full fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extractions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into a normodivergent group (Group N; 30° ≤ SN^GoGn < 36°) consisting of 38 patients (17M, 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) and a hyperdivergent (Group H; SN^GoGn ≥ 36°) including 26 patients (12M, 14F; mean age 13.7 ± 1.1 years). Lateral cephalograms were available before (T0) and after treatment (T1) and cephalometric changes were calculated for 10 linear and 13 angular variables. The Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a normal distribution of data, hence parametric tests were employed. The Student t-test was used to compare groups at baseline. The paired t-test was used to analyze intragroup changes between timepoints, and the Student t-test for intergroup comparisons. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: The Class II division 1 malocclusion was successfully corrected, and the facial profile improved both in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. Divergency increased by 0.76 ± 1.99° in Group N (p = 0.02) while it decreased -0.23 ± 2.25° (p = 0.60); These changes were not significant between groups after treatment (p = 0.680). Most dentoskeletal measurements changed significantly within groups but none of them showed statistically significant differences between groups after treatment. Dental and soft tissue changes were in accordance with the biomechanics used for this Class II orthodontic therapy. Discussion: The effect of orthodontic treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion including extraction of the maxillary first molars in growing patients can be considered clinically equivalent in normodivergent and hyperdivergent patients. For this reason, this orthodontic treatment can be considered a viable option in the armamentarium of the Class II Division I therapy for both facial types.

Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions.

The aim of the present retrospective study was evaluating skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes of two groups of Class II patients orthodontically treated with extractions of upper first premolars (U4 group) and upper first molars (U6 group). In total, 21 patient records (9M and 12F; mean age 12.5 ± 1.2 years) were selected for the U4 group, and 38 patient records (17M and 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) were recruited for the U6 group. Twenty cephalometric variables were analysed on standardised lateral cephalograms at baseline (T0) and at the end of orthodontic treatment (T1). Means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for both groups and increments were calculated. After revealing the normal distribution of data with the Shapiro-Wilk test, Student's t-test was used to compare variables at T0 between groups. A paired t-test was used to analyse changes between time points within each group, and Student's t-test to compare differences between groups at T1. Both groups showed a significant increase in the distance among upper second molars and the vertical pterygoid line (PTV-maxillary second molar centroid U6 group: 6.66 ± 5.00 mm; U4 group: 3.66 ± 2.20 mm). Moreover, the distance of upper incisors to the palatal plane significantly increased (PP-maxillary incisor tip U6 group: 1.09 ± 1.52 mm; U4 group: 0.20 ± 2.00 mm; p = 0.061). Significant changes were found for overjet (U6 group: -4.86 ± 1.62 mm; U4 group: -3.27 ± 1.90 mm; p = 0.001). The distance between upper lip and esthetic plane showed a significantly reduction in both groups (ULip-E Plane U6 group: -2.98 ± 1.65 mm; U4 group: -1.93 ± 1.57 mm). No statistically significant changes were found in sagittal or vertical skeletal values. The significantly larger reduction of upper lip protrusion and overjet in the U6 group compared to the U4 group suggests preferring molar extraction treatment for severe Class II with protrusive soft tissues' profile and increased overjet. Since no differences on vertical values were found, an increased SN^GoGn angle should not be considered a discriminating factor for choosing molar extraction treatment.

Influence of unilateral maxillary first molar extraction treatment on second and third molar inclination in Class II subdivision patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the maxillary second molar (M2) and third molar (M3) inclination following orthodontic treatment of Class II subdivision malocclusion with unilateral maxillary first molar (M1) extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic radiographs of 21 Class II subdivision adolescents (eight boys, 13 girls; mean age, 12.8 years; standard deviation, 1.7 years) before treatment, after treatment with extraction of one maxillary first molar and Begg appliances and after at least 1.8 years in retention were retrospectively collected from a private practice. M2 and M3 inclination angles (M2/ITP, M2/IOP, M3/ITP, M3/IOP), constructed by intertuberosity (ITP) and interorbital planes (IOP), were calculated for the extracted and nonextracted segments. Random effects regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect on the molar angulation of extraction, time, and gender after adjusting for baseline measurements. RESULTS: Time and extraction status were significant predictors for M2 angulation. M2/ITP and M2/IOP decreased by 4.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.93, 1.16; P  =  .001) and 3.67 (95% CI: -6.76, -0.58; P  =  .020) in the extraction group compared to the nonextraction group after adjusting for time and gender. The adjusted analysis showed that extraction was the only predictor for M3 angulation that reached statistical significance. M3 mesial inclination increased by 7.38° (95% CI: -11.2, -3.54; P < .001) and 7.33° (95% CI: -11.48, -3.19; P  =  .001). CONCLUSIONS: M2 and M3 uprighting significantly improved in the extraction side after orthodontic treatment with unilateral maxillary M1 extraction. There was a significant increase in mesial tipping of maxillary second molar crowns over time.

Long-term evaluation of Class II subdivision treatment with unilateral maxillary first molar extraction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term effects of asymmetrical maxillary first molar (M1) extraction in Class II subdivision treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 20 Class II subdivision whites (7 boys, 13 girls; mean age, 13.0 years; SD, 1.7 years) consecutively treated with the Begg technique and M1 extraction, and 15 untreated asymmetrical Class II adolescents (4 boys, 11 girls; mean age, 12.2 years; SD, 1.3 years) were examined in this study. Cephalometric analysis and PAR assessment were carried out before treatment (T1), after treatment (T2), and on average 2.5 years posttreatment (T3) for the treatment group, and at similar time points and average follow-up of 1.8 years for the controls. RESULTS: The adjusted analysis indicated that the maxillary incisors were 2.3 mm more retracted in relation to A-Pog between T1 and T3 (ß â€Š=  2.31; 95% CI; 0.76, 3.87), whereas the mandibular incisors were 1.3 mm more protracted (ß â€Š=  1.34; 95% CI; 0.09, 2.59), and 5.9° more proclined to the mandibular plane (ß â€Š=  5.92; 95% CI; 1.43, 10.41) compared with controls. The lower lip appeared 1.4 mm more protrusive relative to the subnasale-soft tissue-Pog line throughout the observation period in the treated adolescents (ß â€Š=  1.43; 95% CI; 0.18, 2.67). There was a significant PAR score reduction over the entire follow-up period in the molar extraction group (ß â€Š=  -6.73; 95% CI; -10.7, -2.7). At T2, 65% of the subjects had maxillary midlines perfectly aligned with the face. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral M1 extraction in asymmetrical Class II cases may lead to favorable occlusal outcomes in the long term without harming the midline esthetics and soft tissue profile.

Maxillary sinus floor extension and posterior tooth inclination in adolescent patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with maxillary first molar extractions.

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to investigate potential associations between maxillary sinus floor extension and inclination of maxillary second premolars and second molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion whose orthodontic treatment included maxillary first molar extractions. METHODS: The records of 37 patients (18 boys, 19 girls; mean age, 13.2 years; SD, 1.62 years) treated between 1998 and 2004 by 1 orthodontist with full Begg appliances were used in this study. Inclusion criteria were white patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion, sagittal overjet of ≥4 mm, treatment plan including extraction of the maxillary first permanent molars, no missing teeth, and no agenesis. Maxillary posterior tooth inclination and lower maxillary sinus area in relation to the palatal plane were measured on lateral cephalograms at 3 time points: at the start and end of treatment, and on average 2.5 years posttreatment. Data were analyzed for the second premolar and second molar inclinations by using mixed linear models. RESULTS: The analysis showed that the second molar inclination angle decreased by 7° after orthodontic treatment, compared with pretreatment values, and by 11.5° at the latest follow-up, compared with pretreatment. There was evidence that maxillary sinus volume was negatively correlated with second molar inclination angle; the greater the volume, the smaller the inclination angle. For premolars, inclination increased by 15.4° after orthodontic treatment compared with pretreatment, and by 8.1° at the latest follow-up compared with baseline. The volume of the maxillary sinus was not associated with premolar inclination. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of an association between maxillary second molar inclination and surface area of the lower sinus in patients treated with maxillary first molar extractions. Clinicians who undertake such an extraction scheme in Class II patients should be aware of this potential association and consider appropriate biomechanics to control root uprighting.

Class II treatment by extraction of maxillary first molars or Herbst appliance: dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects in comparison.

AIM: To compare dentoskeletal and soft tissue treatment effects of two alternative Class II division 1 treatment modalities (maxillary first permanent molar extraction versus Herbst appliance). METHODS: One-hundred-fifty-four Class II division 1 patients that had either been treated with extractions of the upper first molars and a lightwire multibracket (MB) appliance (n = 79; 38 girls, 41 boys) or non-extraction by means of a Herbst-MB appliance (n = 75; 35 girls, 40 boys). The groups were matched on age and sex. The average age at the start of treatment was 12.7 years for the extraction and for 13.0 years for the Herbst group. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were retrospectively analyzed using a standard cephalometric analysis and the sagittal occlusal analysis according to Pancherz. RESULTS: The SNA decrease was 1.10° (p = 0.001) more pronounced in the extraction group, the SNB angle increased 1.49° more in the Herbst group (p = 0.000). In the extraction group, a decrease in SNB angle (0.49°) was observed. The soft tissue profile convexity (N-Sn-Pog) decreased in both groups, which was 0.78° more (n. s.) pronounced in the Herbst group. The nasolabial angle increased significantly more (+ 2.33°, p = 0.025) in the extraction group. The mechanism of overjet correction in the extraction group was predominantly dental (65% dental and 35% skeletal changes), while in the Herbst group it was predominantly skeletal (58% skeletal and 42% dental changes) in origin. CONCLUSION: Both treatment methods were successful and led to a correction of the Class II division 1 malocclusion. Whereas for upper first molar extraction treatment more dental and maxillary effects can be expected, in case of Herbst treatment skeletal and mandibular effects prevail.

Extraction of maxillary first molars improves second and third molar inclinations in Class II Division 1 malocclusion.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the changes in inclination of the maxillary second (M2) and third (M3) molars after orthodontic treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with extraction of maxillary first molars. METHODS: Two groups of subjects were studied. The experimental group consisted of 37 subjects, 18 boys and 19 girls (mean age, 13.2 ± 1.62 years). The inclusion criteria were white origin, Class II Division 1 malocclusion, overjet ≥4 mm, no missing teeth or agenesis, and maxillary M3 present. All patients were treated with extraction of the maxillary first molars and the Begg technique. Standardized lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the start of active treatment (T1) and at least 3.7 years posttreatment (T2). The control group was drawn from the archives of the Nittedal Growth Material (Oslo University, Oslo, Norway) and included 54 untreated Class I and Class II subjects,18 boys and 36 girls (mean age, 13.4 ± 1.99 years) followed up for a minimum of 3.6 years. M2 and M3 inclinations relative to the palatal plane (PP) and functional occlusal plane (FOP) were measured and compared between groups and time periods. RESULTS: M2 to PP inclination improved significantly in both the control group (M2-PP at T1, 17.7° ± 5.81°, and at T2, 11.9° ± 4.61°) and the experimental group (M2-PP at T1, 26.7° ± 5.75°, and at T2, 6.9° ± 6.76°). There were also significant increases of the mesial inclination of M3 in the control group (M3-PP at T1, 30.1° ± 8.54°, and at T2, 19.6° ± 9.01°) and extraction group (M3-PP at T1, 32.2° ± 7.90°, and at T2, 12.8° ± 7.36°). By using the FOP as the reference system, no significant change in the inclination of M2 was observed in the control group, whereas, in the extraction group, although more distally inclined at T1, M2 ended up mesially inclined at T2 (M2-FOP at T1, 14.2° ± 4.62°, and at T2, -6.2° ± 6.10°; P <0.0001). M3 inclinations were similar between the groups at T1 (M3-FOP control, 17.3° ± 9.35°; M3-FOP experimental, 19.6° ± 7.37°), and these improved significantly in both groups. However, M3 uprighting was almost 4 times greater in the extraction group (M3-FOP from T2-T1, 5.6° vs 19.9°). The greatest distal inclination of M3 at T2 in the extraction group was 9.4°, a value attained by only 43% of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Extraction of the maxillary first molars in Class II Division 1 patients results in significant uprighting of M2 and M3 and facilitates the normal eruption of M3.

A treatment method for Class II Division 1 patients with extraction of permanent maxillary first molars.

Throughout the years, various treatment modalities have been presented for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions. The goal of this paper is to present a treatment approach that involves the extraction of the maxillary first molars followed by use of fixed appliances with low-friction brackets. This treatment approach has proven to be an efficient treatment modality for Class II Division 1 malocclusions, especially with noncompliant patients.