Influence of premolar extractions on long-term adult facial aesthetics and apparent age

Smile attractiveness in patients treated with or without 4 premolar extractions: A 36-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the smile attractiveness in patients treated with or without 4 premolar extractions at a 36-year follow-up.

METHODS

The sample comprised 52 patients with Class I and II malocclusion divided into 2 groups. Group 1 consisted of 15 patients treated without extractions (10 females and 5 males), with a mean pretreatment, posttreatment, and long-term posttreatment (T3) age of 13.2, 15.1, and 49.8 years, respectively. The mean treatment time was 1.9 years, and the mean long-term follow-up period was 34.7 years. Group 2 consisted of 37 patients (25 females and 12 males) treated with 4 premolar extractions, with a mean pretreatment, posttreatment, and long-term posttreatment age of 13.3, 15.7, and 53.6 years, respectively. The mean treatment time was 2.3 years, and the mean long-term follow-up period was 37.9 years. The mean retention time was 2 years for both groups. Frontal smiling photographs were obtained at long-term follow-up. Smile attractiveness was evaluated in an online questionnaire in which the evaluator could rate the smiling photographs with a 10-point scale. The randomly selected evaluator sample consisted of 62 laypeople, 33 dentists, and 89 orthodontists. Independent t tests, 1-way analysis of variance, and Tukey tests were used for intergroup comparisons at P <0.05.

RESULTS

The smile attractiveness on the long term was similar in the groups treated with 4 premolar extractions (4.70 ± 1.35) or without extractions (4.51 ± 1.46). Women and orthodontists were more critical in assessing smile attractiveness than men, dentists, and laypeople.

CONCLUSIONS

After long-term posttreatment, the smile attractiveness was similar in patients treated with 4 premolar extractions or without extractions.

Treatment effects and lip profile changes following premolars extraction treatment vs fixed functional treatment in Class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the treatment effects and lip profile changes in skeletal Class II patients subjected to premolars extraction treatment versus fixed functional treatment.

METHODS

Forty six subjects fulfilling inclusion criteria were randomly distributed into Group PE (mean age 13.03±1.78 years) and Group FF (mean age 12.80±1.67 years) (n=23 each). Group PE was managed by therapeutic extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars, followed by mini-implant-supported space closure; and Group FF, by fixed functional appliance therapy. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes were analyzed using pre and post-treatment lateral cephalograms. Data obtained from this open label study was subjected to blind statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Extraction treatment resulted in greater increase of nasolabial angle (NLA: 3.1 [95% CI 2.08, 4.19], p<0.001), significant improvement of upper lip (UL-E line: -2.91 [95% CI -3.54, -2.28], p<0.001, UL-S line: -2.50 [95% CI -2.76, -2.24], p<0.001, UL-SnPog': -2.32 [95% CI -2.90, -1.74], p<0.01) and lower lip position (LL-E line: -0.68 [95% CI -1.36, 0.00], p<0.01, LL-S line: -0.55 [95% CI -1.11, 0.02], p<0.01, and LL-SnPog': -0.64 [95% CI -1.20, -0.07], p<0.01), lip thickness (UL thickness: 2.27 [95% CI 1.79, 2.75], p<0.001; LL thickness: 0.41 [95% CI -0.16, 0.97], p<0.01), upper lip strain (UL strain: -2.68 [95% CI -3.32, -2.04], p<0.001) and soft tissue profile (N'-Sn-Pog': 2.68 [95% CI 1.87, 3.50], p<0.01). No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding skeletal changes in the maxilla and mandible, growth pattern, overjet, overbite, interincisal angle and soft tissue chin position (p>0.05). Premolar extraction treatment demonstrated significant intrusion-retraction of maxillary incisors, better maintenance of maxillary incisor inclination, and significant mandibular molar protraction; whereas functional treatment resulted in retrusive and intrusive effect on maxillary molars, marked proclination of mandibular anterior teeth, and significant extrusion of mandibular molars. Both treatment modalities had similar treatment duration. Implant failure was seen in 7.9% of cases, whereas failure of fixed functional appliance was observed in 9.09% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Premolar extraction therapy is a better treatment modality, compared to fixed functional appliance therapy for Class II patients with moderate skeletal discrepancy, increased overjet, protruded maxillary incisors and protruded lips, as it produces better dentoalveolar response and permits greater improvement of the soft tissue profile and lip relationship.

The effect of orthodontic treatment on facial attractiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Facial and smile attractiveness are significant motivating factor for patients to seek orthodontic treatment. Although there is a general belief that orthodontic treatment improves facial appearance, this has yet not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the current evidence on the effect of orthodontic treatment on facial attractiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

Systematic and unrestricted search of nine databases were performed up to January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating facial attractiveness before and after orthodontic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Extracted data included study design and setting, sample size and demographics, malocclusion type, treatment modality, and method for outcome assessment. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies and with RoB-2 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in data synthesis; three randomized controlled clinical trials and 17 non-randomized clinical studies of retrospective or prospective design. One of the RCTs was found to have low risk of bias, one presented some concerns and the third showed a high risk of bias. All non-randomized studies showed either unclear or high risk of bias. Data syntheses showed that orthodontic treatment improved facial attractiveness ratings by 9% when compared with untreated controls (MD: 9.05/95% CI: 4.71; 13.39). A combination of orthodontics and orthognathic surgery also showed a positive effect of 5.5% (MD: 5.51/95% CI: 1.55; 9.47) when compared with orthodontic treatment alone. There was no difference in effect between extraction and non-extraction treatments (MD: -0.89/ 95% CI: -8.72; 6.94) or between different types of Class II correctors (MD: 2.21/95% CI: -16.51; 20.93).

LIMITATIONS

With the exception of two RCTs, included studies were of unclear or low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic treatment has a clinically weak effect on facial attractiveness when compared to no treatment. The same is true when a combined orthodontic/surgical treatment is compared to orthodontics alone.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #: CRD42020169904.

Extraction vs. Nonextraction on Soft-Tissue Profile Change in Patients with Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

We aimed to summarize the current evidence regarding the impact of extraction vs. nonextraction in orthodontic treatment on patients' soft-tissue profile with malocclusion.

Methods

Between April 30^th and November 30^th, 2020, we searched PubMed and SCOPUS for published papers from inception to November 2020 using "orthodontic," "extraction," "nonextraction," and "Malocclusion." Included studies were summarized, and relevant data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.

Results

Pooled data from four controlled trials demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between extraction and nonextraction in terms of SNA (MD = 0.50, 95% CI: -0.37, 1.38; p = 0.26), SNB (MD = 0.11, 95% CI: -1.23, 1.44; p = 0.88), FMA (MD = 1.82, 95% CI: -2.39, 6.02; p = 0.40), IMPA (MD = 0.06, 95% CI: -8.83, -8.94; p = 0.99), overjet (MD = -1.47, 95% CI: -6.21, 3.26; p = 0.54), and overbite (MD = 0.50, 95% CI: -1.40, 2.40; p = 0.60). On the other hand, the extraction method significantly increased the ANB compared with the nonextraction group (MD = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.25, 1.31; p = 0.004).

Conclusion

The current evidence demonstrated that nonextraction protocols for orthodontic treatment are a safe and effective alternative to extraction protocols; individually tailored treatment strategies should be applied. More randomized controlled trials are critically needed to safely make an evidence-based treatment conclusion.

Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment

This retrospective study evaluated facial profile pleasantness determined by two protocols of Class II treatment. The sample comprised facial profile silhouettes obtained retrospectively from the pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) cephalograms of 60 patients (42 males and 18 females) divided into two groups. One group of 30 patients (mean age of 12.84 years) was treated with the extraction of maxillary first premolars (mean treatment time of 2.7 years), and the other group of 30 patients (mean age of 12.81 years) was treated with a mandibular advancement appliance (Forsus) (mean treatment time of 2.49 years). The facial profile silhouettes (T1 and T2) were randomly distributed in an album containing one patient per sheet. The examiners consisted of 60 orthodontists and 60 lay individuals, who analyzed the profiles in regard to facial pleasantness, using the Likert scale. A comparison between stages T1 and T2 of the two treatment protocols and between the examiners was performed by mixed-design analysis of variance at a significance level of 5%. The results demonstrated a significant difference between T1 and T2 (greater scores for T2 compared to T1), and between lay individuals and orthodontists (orthodontists assigned higher scores), but with no significant difference between the treatment protocols. Both protocols produced positive effects on the facial profile esthetics, from the standpoint of lay individuals and orthodontists.

Long-term profile attractiveness in Class II Division 1 malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the influence of Class II treatment protocols in profile attractiveness.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with initial full Class II Division 1 malocclusion, orthodontically treated an average of 15 years before, and matched by sex, age, time after treatment, orthodontic outcomes, and overjet, were compared. Three groups were formed, according to the treatment protocol: NE, nonextraction (n = 20; mean age 29.94 years, 15.62 years after treatment); 2E, 2-premolar extractions (n = 27; mean age 30.56 years, 15.09 years after treatment); and 4E, 4-premolar extractions (n = 21; mean age 32.29 years, 17.20 years after treatment). Cephalometric measurements and profile silhouettes were obtained from posttreatment and long-term posttreatment lateral cephalograms. With a 10-point numeric scale, 77 orthodontists and 77 laypeople rated profile attractiveness of each silhouette on a website.

RESULTS

The raters' posttreatment and long-term posttreatment scores, respectively, were: NE 4.76 and 4.32; 2E 5.35 and 5.08; and 4E 4.53 and 4.33.

CONCLUSIONS

The posttreatment profile attractiveness was significantly higher in the 2E than in the 4E group, and in the NE group it was similar to the others. The long-term profile attractiveness in the 2E group was significantly greater compared with the NE and 4E groups.