Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2019, vol. 56, nr 3, July-September, p. 257–263

doi: 10.17219/dmp/109568

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Comparison of soft and hard tissue changes between symmetric and asymmetric extraction patterns in patients undergoing orthodontic extractions

Porównanie zmian tkanek miękkich i twardych pomiędzy metodami ekstrakcji symetrycznej i asymetrycznej u pacjentów leczonych ekstrakcyjnie ze wskazań ortodontycznych

Sarah Irfan1,A,B,C,D, Mubassar Fida1,E,F

1 Section of Dentistry, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan


Background. Orthodontic treatment modalities and biomechanics are important factors influencing soft and hard tissues.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare soft and hard tissue changes after implementing asymmetric and symmetric extraction patterns.
Material and Methods. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using the orthodontic files of 62 patients from the dental clinics of a tertiary care hospital. Patients were divided into 2 groups, each of 31 patients. Group 1 referred to the symmetric extraction patterns (SEP), whereas group 2 regarded the asymmetric extraction patterns (AEP). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine differences between the initial and final cephalometric parameters. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare the treatment changes between SEP and AEP. The SEP and AEP groups were divided into subgroups for further analyses. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to determine significant differences in the cephalometric changes among the different subgroups. In order to further establish inter-group differences, a pairwise comparison between the subgroups was made using the Mann–Whitney U-test.
Results. In the symmetric group, the preand post-treatment values for all soft tissue variables, upper incisor-sella-nasion plane angle (UI-SN), lower incisor mandibular plane angle (L-IMPA), and Frankfurtmandibular plane angle (FMA) showed significant differences (p ≤ 0.05). In the asymmetric group, none of the soft tissue parameters showed any significant difference in the preand post-treatment values; however, FMA and L-IMPA differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05). The parameters UI-SN and FMA as well as all soft tissue variables except Z-angle (Z), were significantly different between the SEP and AEP groups. The medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cephalometric changes among the subgroups were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test. All soft tissues parameters except Z showed significant differences.
Conclusion. The symmetric extraction patterns leads to a greater change in the patient’s profile, whereas asymmetric extractions can be carried out to remedy occlusal discrepancies without the risk of profile flattening. While employing premolar extractions aiming to reduce the facial height, due consideration with respect to biomechanics must be given.

Key words

tooth extraction, incisor, premolar

Słowa kluczowe

ekstrakcja zęba, siekacz, ząb przedtrzonowy

References (37)

  1. Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod. 1983;84(1):1–28.
  2. Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod. 1970;40(4):284–318.
  3. Holdaway RA. A soft tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning, Part II. Am J Orthod. 1984;85(4):279–293.
  4. Young TM, Smith RJ. Effects of orthodontics on the facial profile: A comparison of changes during nonextraction and four premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103(5):452–458.
  5. Beattie JR, Paquette DE, Johnston LE. The functional impact of extraction and non-extraction treatments: A long-term compari­son in patients with “borderline”, equally susceptible Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105(5):444–449.
  6. Hayashida H, Ioi H, Nakata S, Takahashi I, Counts AL. Effects of retraction of anterior teeth and initial soft tissue variables on lip changes in Japanese adults. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(4):419–426.
  7. Faerovig E, Zachrisson BU. Effects of mandibular incisor extraction on anterior occlusion in adults with Class III malocclusion and reduced overbite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115(2):113–124.
  8. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2000:251.
  9. Melgaço CA, Araújo MTS. Asymmetric extractions in orthodontics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012;17(2):151–156.
  10. Bahreman AA. Lower incisor extraction in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1977;72(5):560–567.
  11. Kokich VG, Shapiro PA. Lower incisor extraction in orthodontic treatment. Four clinical reports. Angle Orthod. 1984;54(2):139–153.
  12. Valinoti JR. Mandibular incisor extraction therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105(2):107–116.
  13. Yogosawa F. Predicting soft tissue profile changes concurrent with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1990;60(3):199–206.
  14. Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR, Zaher AR. Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in Class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;107(1):28–37.
  15. Kasai K. Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissues in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113(6):674–684.
  16. Subtelny JD, Sakuda M. Muscle function, oral malformation, and growth changes. Am J Orthod. 1966;52(7):495–517.
  17. Oliver BM. The influence of lip thickness and strain on upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(2):141–149.
  18. Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95(3):220–230.
  19. Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;91(5):385–394.
  20. Mamandras AH. Linear changes of the maxillary and mandibular lips. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;94(5):405–410.
  21. Guo Y, Han X, Xu H, Ai D, Zeng H, Bai D. Morphological characteri­stics influencing the orthodontic extraction strategies for Angle’s class II division 1 malocclusions. Prog Orthod. 2014;15(1):44.
  22. Lim HJ, Ko KT, Hwang HS. Esthetic impact of premolar extraction and nonextraction treatments on Korean borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4):524–531.
  23. Moseling KP, Woods MG. Lip curve changes in females with premolar extraction or nonextraction treatment. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(1):51–62.
  24. Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod.1967;53(4):262–284.
  25. Zierhut EC, Joondeph DR, Artun J, Little RM. Long-term profile changes associated with successfully treated extraction and nonextraction Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2000;70(3):208–219.
  26. Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S. Factors influencing soft tissue profile changes following orthodontic treatment in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Prog Orthod. 2016;17:13.
  27. Weyrich C, Lisson JA. The effect of premolar extractions on incisor position and soft tissue profile in patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. J Orofac Orthop. 2009;70(2):128–138.
  28. Janson G, Lenza EB, Francisco R, Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Garib D, Lenza MA. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes in class II subdivision treatment with asymmetric extraction protocols. Prog Orthod. 2017;18(1):39.
  29. Bernstein RL, Preston CB, Lampasso J. Leveling the curve of Spee with a continuous archwire technique: A long term cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(3):363–371.
  30. Millett DT, Cunningham SJ, O’Brien KD, Benson PE, de Oliveira CM. Treatment and stability of class II division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(2):159–169.
  31. Janson G, Carvalho PE, Cançado RH, de Freitas MR, Henriques JF. Cephalometric evaluation of symmetric and asymmetric extraction treatment for patients with Class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(1):28–35.
  32. Scott Conley R, Jernigan C. Soft tissue changes after upper premolar extraction in Class II camouflage therapy. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(1):59–65.
  33. Katsaros C. Profile changes following extraction vs nonextraction orthodontic treatment in a pair of identical twins. J Orofac Orthop. 1996;57(1):56–59.
  34. Katsaros C, Ripplinger B, Högel A, Berg R. The influence of extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment on the soft tissue profile. J Orofac Orthop. 1996;57(6):354–365.
  35. Kirschneck C, Proff P, Reicheneder C, Lippold C. Short-term effects of systematic premolar extraction on lip profile, vertical dimension and cephalometric parameters in borderline patients for extraction therapy – a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(4):865–874.
  36. Zafarmand AH, Zafarmand MM. Premolar extraction in orthodontics: Does it have any effect on patient’s facial height? J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015;5(1):64–68.
  37. Staggers JA. Vertical changes following first premolar extraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;105(1):19–24.