Abstract
Thirty-five cases have been collected from colleagues which illustrate that removal of additional maxillary teeth, following first bicuspid extractions, can allow the successful resolution of difficult discrepancy and anchorage cases. Charts 1 and 2 describe the amounts of space that might be expected by removal of additional upper bicuspids, upper first molars, and upper second molars. The findings on upper second molars are admittedly limited. Anchorage values as expressed by an efficiency percentage were approximately what would be expected from a study of anchorage values of the roots of teeth. The removal of upper second bicuspids has a better anchorage efficiency potential than the upper first molar, but this may be overcome somewhat by the greater size of the molar. Clear guidance cannot be given as to which teeth to remove in a specific case, but it is the observation of the author that for cases that are still in full Class II following four bicuspid space closure, upper second bicuspid removal would be more helpful from an anchorage perspective, whereas for cases that are in end-to-end molar relationship or require only a few millimeters to move into Class I, the upper first molar might be the tooth of choice. Also, the supper first molar removal allows for a more "normal" appearing arch assuming normal alignment and size of the upper second and third molars. The comparison with the nonextraction control group showed an enormous difference in the amount of incisor retraction that extractions provide when related to the maxilla. The nonextraction control group, though experiencing dramatic correction of Class II relationships, showed no incisor movement within the maxilla. Some problems which appeared in the sample were described. Removal of upper teeth in addition to the four first bicuspids can be a solution to an occasional anchorage, skeletal, growth or cooperation problem.
Collapse