Influence of unilateral maxillary first molar extraction treatment on second and third molar inclination in Class II subdivision patients

Comparison of the Mesiodistal Angulations of Canine and Molar Teeth in Different Types of Orthodontic Malocclusions: A Retrospective Study

(i) Objective: Changes in the mesiodistal axial angulations of teeth with orthodontic treatment have been a topic of interest in orthodontics for many years, although it has not been clarified enough yet. Therefore, this present study aimed to compare mesiodistal axial angulations of canine and first molar teeth by measuring from pre- and post-treatment panoramic radiographs in different types of orthodontic malocclusions. (ii) Materials and Methods: In the study, the mesiodistal axial angulation angles of the lower–upper canines (teeth numbered 13, 23, 33, and 43) and first molars (teeth numbered 16, 26, 36, and 46) were compared on panoramic radiographs taken pre- (T0) and post- (T1) orthodontic treatment of 353 patients: 237 female (mean age 14.74 ± 2.96) and 116 male (mean age 14.44 ± 2.50), who had not received any prior orthodontic treatment. The groups were formed according to pre-/post-treatment, gender, angle classification, skeletal classification, bilaterally first premolar extraction/non-extraction, and the use/non-use of miniscrews in the extraction cases. The mesiodistal angulations between the long axes of both the lower and upper canines and first molars and the interorbital plane were measured separately and recorded. The reliability analysis between the repeated measurements was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). For statistical analysis, a paired sample t-test and Wilcoxon test were used for the normally and non-normally distributed data, respectively. For the between-groups comparison, independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were used for normally distributed data, while the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for non-normally distributed data. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. (iii) Results: ICCs showed excellent reliability, ranging from 0.804 to 0.913 in other teeth, yet were good in tooth 43 (ICC = 0.712). Regardless of the groups, statistically significant differences were found between the T0 and T1 angulations for all teeth, except teeth 13 and 16. In all groups, the increase in the angulations of teeth 33 and 43 and the decrease in the angulations of teeth 36 and 46 (except skeletal class 3) were found to be statistically significant. The T0 and T1 angulation changes in the miniscrews in the used and non-used groups in extraction cases were similar to the differences found in all teeth, regardless of the groups. There was no significant difference between gender, skeletal classes, and angle classes in the amounts of change in the mesiodistal angulations. (iv) Conclusion: It was concluded that orthodontic treatment caused significant changes in the mesiodistal axial angulation of the canine and the first molar teeth. Furthermore, the fact that the angulations tended to increase in the lower canine teeth and decrease in the lower first molar teeth revealed the importance of tooth movement control, especially in orthodontic mechanics in the mandibula.

Eruption Pattern of Third Molars in Orthodontic Patients Treated with First Permanent Molar Extraction: A Longitudinal Retrospective Evaluation

The aim of this study was to evaluate angular and positional changes in the second (M2) and third molars (M3) of orthodontically treated patients undergoing a first molar (M1) extraction. A retrospective longitudinal study with a sample of 152 pre- and post-treatment panoramic radiographs was conducted. Thirty-nine patients (51.3%) were orthodontically treated with M1 extraction and thirty-seven (48.7%) were treated without extraction. Angulations of M2 and M3 relative to the infraorbital (IOP) and the palatal planes (PP) were measured and compared between the groups before orthodontic treatment (T1) and after the completion of orthodontic space closure (T2). The prognosis of M3 eruptions was evaluated by assessing their horizontal and vertical position (inclination) using different classification systems. The angular (p < 0.001) and inclination improvement (p < 0.01) of the maxillary M3 was significant for the M1 extraction group. The mandibular M3 inclination significantly improved (p < 0.01), whereas the groups' angulation and vertical position were not significantly different. These findings suggest that extraction therapy has a favorable effect on the maxillary M2 and M3 angulation, but not on the mandibular. M1 extraction showed a signi- ficant effect on the horizontal position of M3 and thus may improve the eruption space and prognosis.

Differences in third molar development and angulation in class II subdivision malocclusions

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the developmental stages and angulations of third molars between the class II and class I sides in class II subdivision malocclusions.

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed using panoramic x‑rays of 38 individuals (mean age: 15.5 years; 24 females, 14 males) with class II subdivision malocclusions, which were further divided into type 1 and 2 subgroups according to midline deviation, and a control group of 42 individuals (mean age: 17.0 years; 30 females, 12 males) with normal occlusion. Third molars were categorized using the developmental stages defined by the Demirjian method. Angles between the third molars and horizontal reference lines and also to the second molars were measured.

RESULTS

No difference was found in developmental stages or angulations between the left and right third molars in the control group. In the class II subdivision malocclusion cases, no difference in third molar developmental stages was observed, but the angle between the long axes of the mandibular third and second molars was significantly greater on the class II side. In the type 2 subgroup, developmental stage of the maxillary third molar was more advanced on the class II side. In both subgroups, the angles of the maxillary third molars' long axis to the interorbital plane differed significantly between the two sides.

CONCLUSION

Class II subdivision malocclusion may cause differences in third molar development and angulations between the two sides. Orthodontic treatment should be planned considering the third molars in this malocclusion.

Effects of Angle class II correction with the Forsus fatigue resistant device on mandibular third molars : A retrospective study

PURPOSE

The goal was to evaluate the effects of Angle class II malocclusion treatment using the Forsus fatigue resistant device (FRD, 3M, St. Paul, MN, USA) on the position and angulation of mandibular third molars and retromolar space.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 58 class II patients (mean age 13.6 ± 1.8 years) treated with the FRD (FRD group) were compared with 51 class I patients (mean age 13.5 ± 1.6 years) who underwent orthodontic treatment (control group). A total of 109 mandibular third molars in the FRD group and 91 in the control group were evaluated. Changes in the retromolar space, angulation of the second (ɣ) and third molars (β), and the angle between these teeth (α) were assessed with panoramic radiographs taken at the beginning and the end of the treatment. Data were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

At the end of the treatment, there were significant increases in ɣ and β in the FRD group and ɣ in the control group (p < 0.05). The decrease in α in the FRD group and increase in the control group were not significant (p > 0.05); however, this change led to a small significant change between the groups (p < 0.05). The retromolar space significantly increased in the FRD group compared to the control group (p < 0.05). No significant correlation was found between retromolar space and third molar uprighting in any of the groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Class II correction with FRD led to mesialization of the lower arch which provided an increase in the retromolar space. Little improvement in the uprighting of the third molars occurred.

The extraction of first, second or third permanent molar teeth and its effect on the dentofacial complex

The extraction of permanent molar teeth was first introduced in 1976 as a substitution for premolar extraction in cases with mild crowding. Since then, a number of studies have investigated the effect of permanent molar extraction on dentofacial harmony. Undertaking the procedure of molar extraction is most commonly recommended in response to factors such as: gross caries, large restorations and root-filled teeth, along with its application in the management of anterior open bite and reduction in crowding in facial regions. It has been indicated, however, that before undertaking the extraction of molar teeth it is important to investigate the potential influence of the procedure on other molars, with particular consideration of their eruption path. This is due to the doubt as to the effect of the exact molar teeth extraction and their consequences. In light of this, This review was undertaken to investigate and compare the effect of first, second and the third molar teeth extraction and their subsequent dentofacial complex changes.

Effect of extraction or nonextraction orthodontic treatment modality on favorability of eruption of impacted third molars

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to determine if extraction of permanent teeth, for orthodontic purpose, causes a change in third molar angulation and also to determine if extraction of permanent teeth causes an increase in eruption space available for third molars.

METHODS

This systematic review includes retrospective cohort studies which evaluated the change in third molar angulation or eruption space available for third molars among orthodontic patients treated by a fixed appliance with either extraction or nonextraction protocol. Search engines used were MEDLINE, IndMED, Web of Science, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar from the year 1975 to 2015. Separate data collection forms were used to extract data from the studies. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess the studies included in the systematic review.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies included in the systematic review proved that third molar angulation and eruption space improved in patients treated with extraction treatment modality. However, two studies concluded that change in third molar angulation and eruption space occurred irrespective of the type of treatment involved.

CONCLUSION

The angulation and eruption space of third molar improved following extraction of premolar or molar. Nonextraction treatment modality did not cause any adverse effects.

Unilateral Maxillary First Molar Extraction in Class II Subdivision: An Unconventional Treatment Alternative

The asymmetrical intra-arch relationship in Class II subdivision malocclusion poses challenges in the treatment planning and mechanotherapy of such cases. This case report demonstrates a treatment technique engaging unilateral extraction of a maxillary first molar and Begg fixed appliances. The outcome stability and the enhancing effect on the eruption of the third molar in the extraction segment were confirmed by a 4-year follow-up examination.