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

Facial soft tissue characteristics of patients with different types of malocclusion

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the facial soft tissue characteristics of patients with different types of malocclusion.

METHODS

The 3dMD scanning data of patients with malocclusion admitted to our hospital from January 2018 to April 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Forty-seven patients with Class I malocclusion, 43 patients with Class II malocclusion and 44 patients with Class III malocclusion were selected. All patients underwent 3dMD scans prior to orthodontic treatment. Then the differences in the 3D morphological parameters of the facial soft tissues were compared between different sexes and different types of malocclusion. Spearman's correlation was further used to analyze the correlation between each parameter and the classification of malocclusion.

RESULTS

In the Class I group and Class II group, there were no significant differences in the 3D morphometric parameters of malocclusion patients of different sexes (P > 0.05). There were significant differences between Al (R)-AL (L), Ac (R)-Ac (L), Prn-Ac (L), n-Prn-Sn, and Al (R)-Al (L)/Ac (L)-Ah (L) values among the three groups of patients. Spearman correlation analysis showed that Ac (R)-Ac (L) and Al (R)-Al (L)/Ac (R)-Ac (L) were correlated with the type of malocclusion.

CONCLUSION

Differences in facial soft tissues exist in patients with Class I, II, and III malocclusion. 3dMD technique may be helpful in developing an effective treatment plan prior to orthodontic treatment.

Accuracy of Digital Imaging Software to Predict Soft Tissue Changes during Orthodontic Treatment

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the Digital Imaging software in the prediction of soft tissue changes following three types of orthodontic interventions: non-extraction, extraction, and orthognathic surgery treatments. Ninety-six patients were randomly selected from the records of three orthodontic interventions (32 subjects per group): (1) non-extraction, (2) extraction, and (3) orthodontic treatment combined with orthognathic surgery. The cephalometric analysis of soft tissue changes in both the actual post-treatment and the predicted treatment was performed using Dolphin Imaging software version 11.9. A paired t-test was utilized to assess the statistically significant differences between the predicted and actual treatment outcomes of the parameters (p < 0.05). In the non-extraction group, prediction errors were exhibited only in the lower lip parameters. In the extraction group, prediction errors were observed in both the upper and lower lip parameters. In the orthognathic surgery group, prediction errors were identified in chin thickness, facial contour angle, and upper and lower lip parameters (p < 0.05). Digital Imaging software exhibited inaccurate soft tissue prediction of 0.3-1.0 mm in some parameters of all treatment groups, which should be considered regarding the application of Dolphin Imaging software in orthodontic treatment planning.

Extraction vs nonextraction orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare four first premolar extraction and nonextraction treatment effects on intra-arch width, profile, treatment duration, occlusal outcomes, smile aesthetics and stability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of the literature to June 2, 2023 was conducted using health science databases, with additional search of gray literature, unpublished material, and hand searching, for studies reporting nonsurgical patients with fixed appliances regarding sixteen sub-outcomes. Data extraction used customized forms, quality assessed with ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) and Cochrane RoB 2 (risk-of-bias) tool. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) assessed certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty (29 retrospective studies, 1 randomized controlled trial) studies were included. Random-effect meta-analysis (95% CI) demonstrated maxillary (MD: -2.03 mm; [-2.97, -1.09]; P < .0001) and mandibular inter-first molar width decrease (MD: -2.00 mm; [-2.71, -1.30]; P < .00001) with four first premolar extraction; mandibular intercanine width increase (MD: 0.68 mm; [0.36, 0.99]; P < .0001) and shorter treatment duration (MD: 0.36 years; [0.10, 0.62]; P = .007) in the nonextraction group. Narrative synthesis included three and five studies for upper and lower lip-E plane, respectively. For American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System and maxillary/mandibular anterior alignment (Little's irregularity index), each included two studies with inconclusive evidence. There were no eligible studies for UK Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score. Class I subgroup/sensitivity analyses favored the same results. Prediction interval indicated no significant difference for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Four first premolar extraction results in maxillary and mandibular inter-first molar width decrease and retraction of upper/lower lips. Nonextraction treatment results in mandibular intercanine width increase and shorter treatment duration. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding maxillary intercanine width, US PAR score, and posttreatment smile esthetics. Further high-quality focused research is recommended.

Premolar Extraction Affects Mandibular Kinematics

OBJECTIVES

 The practice of premolar extraction in orthodontics is controversial for its potential detrimental effects on the stomatognathic system. However, the ways in which premolar extraction affects mandibular function are still poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of premolar extraction on mandibular kinematics by evaluating axiographic tracings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Forty-five orthodontically treated patients with premolar teeth extraction were compared with 45 paired untreated controls, selected for the absence of malocclusions. Systematic three-dimensional axiographic recordings of the mandibular movements were performed for protrusive-retrusive movements and speech. The transversal deviations and length of the movements were recorded for both sides along with the rotation angle during speech.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

 Differences between the axiographic variables were analyzed via the permutation test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Linear regression was performed to test whether axiographic parameters were predictive of group affiliation. Dot plots were used to explore the distribution of each of the axiographic outcomes, and isometric principal component analysis to assess the differences between the cumulative effects of premolar extraction on jaw motion.

RESULTS

 The mandibular lateral translation in protrusion-retrusion and speech, the amount of rotation as well as the length of mandibular movements during speech were significantly higher in the treated subjects than in the controls, while retral stability did not differ. The linear regression yielded significant results for the mandibular lateral translation in protrusion-retrusion. The isometric principal component analysis showed higher values of the axiographic variables for 11 out of 45 individuals in the study sample compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

 Premolar extraction altered mandibular kinematics in at least 25% of the cases within our sample, and the transversal discrepancy between protrusive and retrusive tracings was even predictive of group affiliation. These results support the notion that the routine practice of premolar extraction as part of the orthodontic treatment should be discouraged. It is compelling to perform further studies to assess whether a disrupted kinematics of the mandible is associated to temporomandibular disorders.