American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Original articleMaxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with orthodontic treatment. Part 1: Differences between premolar extraction and nonextraction treatment outcomes
Section snippets
Material and methods
Approval was obtained for this study from the Melbourne Dental School Human Ethics Advisory Group and Dental Health Services Victoria in Australia. A preliminary sample of pretreatment and posttreatment photographs of 137 patients (82 premolar extraction, 55 nonextraction) was assessed. The extraction patients had 4 premolars extracted (1 in each quadrant), with no discrimination toward which premolars were extracted. All subjects had been treated with maxillary and mandibular contemporary
Results
For the within-treatment group outcomes (Table IV), the mean intercanine pretreatment and posttreatment widths were not significantly different in the nonextraction group. In the extraction group, there was a significant mean treatment increase in this measurement of 1.54 mm. In both groups, there were significant treatment increases in the mean widths across the premolars (extraction, 3.85 mm; nonextraction, 1.65 mm) and at the level of the posterior rugae (extraction, 1.66 mm; nonextraction,
Discussion
Currently, a nonextraction approach is increasingly advocated to be the aim of orthodontic treatment when possible. The reasons for this are partly patient driven because of social media influences36 and partly because of the belief by some that extracting premolars leads to poor esthetic results through creating larger buccal corridors from constriction of the dental arches.25, 26
Conventionally, arch widths have been measured between the cusp tips of the canines, premolars, and molars.16, 27,
Conclusions
Taking into account the limitations of this study and the wide individual variations of the results, the following conclusions can be drawn.
- 1.
There are likely to be significant differences in average posttreatment maxillary anterior and posterior arch widths in patients treated with or without premolar extractions, largely reflecting their presenting morphology.
- 2.
Posttreatment anterior arch width widening is likely to be seen in both extraction and nonextraction patients.
- 3.
Both anterior and posterior
Acknowledgments
We thank Steve Vander Hoorn of the Statistical Consulting Centre at the University of Melbourne for his guidance with the statistical analysis of the study data, Geoffrey West for providing his Westcef analysis program, and Ari Sciacca for the loan of his inclination measuring gauge.
References (46)
- et al.
Young people's esthetic perception of dental midline deviation
Angle Orthod
(2010) The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: the smile arc
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2001)Esthetics: the orthodontic-periodontic restorative connection
Semin Orthod
(1996)Principles of cosmetic dentistry in orthodontics: part 1. Shape and proportionality of anterior teeth
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2004)- et al.
The dynesthetic interpretation of the dentogenic concept
J Prosthet Dent
(1958) An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile
Am J Orthod
(1970)- et al.
Smile estheties after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(1995) - et al.
Hard- and soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2008) - et al.
Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: part 2. Smile analysis and treatment strategies
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2003) - et al.
The effects of buccal corridor spaces and arch form on smile esthetics
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
(2005)
Buccal smile corridors
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Dynamic smile visualization and quantification: part 1. Evolution of the concept and dynamic records for smile capture
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Premolar extraction and smile esthetics
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Emerging paradigms in orthodontics—an essay
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Premolar extractions and smile esthetics
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Arch width after extraction and nonextraction treatment
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in “borderline” Class II patients
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Do long-term changes in relative maxillary arch width affect buccal-corridor ratios in extraction and nonextraction treatment?
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
The six keys to normal occlusion
Am J Orthod
Normal inner canthal and outer orbital dimensions
J Pediatr
Hypertelorism: interorbital growth, measurements, and pathogenetic considerations
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
Arch width
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
The use of palatal rugae for the assessment of anteroposterior tooth movements
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
Cited by (15)
Evaluation of parameters related with upper lip aesthetics and dynamic smile following Le Fort I osteotomy
2022, Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryPerceptions of orthodontists, laypersons, and patients regarding buccal corridors and facial types
2022, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsEffect of nonextraction and extraction orthodontic treatments on smile esthetics for different malocclusions
2018, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsArch-width changes in extraction vs nonextraction treatments in matched Class I borderline malocclusions
2017, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCitation Excerpt :In contrast, extraction patients show a significant decrease in arch perimeter, which is obvious because of the removal of dental substance, as long as the dental arches do not have severe crowding. Our findings suggest that significant widening of the maxillary intercanine width by 1.90 mm occurred in the extraction group, agreeing with the findings of other authors,6,11,16,18,19 but disagreeing with the report of Germeç-Cakan et al.15 Likewise, the mandibular intercanine width increased significantly in the extraction group in accordance with the findings of most studies.6,14-17 The intercanine width increases in both jaws can possibly be explained by the distalization of the canines in a wider part of the dental arch during canine retraction.
Effects of tooth extraction on smile esthetics and the buccal corridor: A meta-analysis
2016, Journal of Dental SciencesCitation Excerpt :All six studies were published from 1995 to 2014, with sample sizes of 24–60 patients. Meyer et al17,30 reported the results of buccal corridor and esthetic score on the same patients in two separate studies. In all studies, the patients were divided into extraction and nonextraction groups.
Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with orthodontic treatment. Part 2: Attractiveness of the frontal facial smile in extraction and nonextraction outcomes
2014, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCitation Excerpt :The details of the method used to measure the photographs to obtain the various buccal corridor widths and areas have been reported previously.22 The posttreatment measurements of the buccal corridor widths and areas from part 1 of this study that relate to the photographs shown to the panel members are documented in Table III and Figures 3 to 5.22 Abbreviations used for the buccal corridor measurements are listed in Table IV.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.