The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of soft tissue changes between incisor tipping and translation after premolar extraction

  • Baik, Wonkyeong (Department of Orthodontics, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Choi, Sung-Hwan (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cha, Jung-Yul (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Yu, Hyung-Seog (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Kee-Joon (Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Craniofacial Deformity, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2021.04.20
  • Accepted : 2021.08.06
  • Published : 2022.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study compared soft tissue changes after extraction of the four premolars followed by maximum retraction of the anterior teeth according to the type of anterior teeth movement: tipping and translation. Methods: Patients who had undergone orthodontic treatment involving the extraction of four premolars were retrospectively selected and divided into either the tipping (n = 27) or translation (n = 26) groups based on the retraction of the incisor root apex and the axis changes of the incisors during the treatment period. Lateral pre- and post-treatment cephalograms were analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences between the tipping and translation groups before treatment. The retraction amounts of the root apex of the upper and lower incisors in the tipping group were 0.33 and 0.26 mm, respectively, and 5.02 and 5.31 mm, respectively, in the translation group (p < 0.001). The posterior movements of soft tissue points A and B in the tipping group were 0.61 and 1.25 mm, respectively, and 1.10 and 3.25 mm, respectively, in the translation group (p < 0.01). The mentolabial sulcus angle increased by 5.89° in the tipping group, whereas it decreased by 8.13° in the translation group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: An increased amount of retraction of the incisor root apex led to the increased posterior movement of soft tissue points A and B, and this appeared more distinct in cases involving the lower incisor and lower lip.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI20C0611).

References

  1. 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;33:419-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq095
  2. Bravo LA. Soft tissue facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment with four premolars extracted. Angle Orthod 1994;64:31-42.
  3. Kim K, Choi SH, Choi EH, Choi YJ, Hwang CJ, Cha JY. Unpredictability of soft tissue changes after camouflage treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion with maximum anterior retraction using miniscrews. Angle Orthod 2017;87:230-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/042516-332.1
  4. Caplan MJ, Shivapuja PK. The effect of premolar extractions on the soft-tissue profile in adult African American females. Angle Orthod 1997;67:129-36.
  5. Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:385-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90391-X
  6. Hershey HG. Incisor tooth retraction and subsequent profile change in postadolescent female patients. Am J Orthod 1972;61:45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(72)90175-3
  7. Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:302-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.038
  8. Antoszewska-Smith J, Sarul M, Lyczek J, Konopka T, Kawala B. Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:440-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.029
  9. Vibhute PJ. Optimizing anterior en masse retraction with miniscrew anchorage. Case Rep Dent 2011;2011:475638.
  10. Kim SJ, Kim JW, Choi TH, Lee KJ. Combined use of miniscrews and continuous arch for intrusive root movement of incisors in Class II division 2 with gummy smile. Angle Orthod 2014;84:910-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/080713-587.1
  11. Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004;74:703-10.
  12. Kim JH, Gansukh O, Amarsaikhan B, Lee SJ, Kim TW. Comparison of cephalometric norms between Mongolian and Korean adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced profiles. Korean J Orthod 2011;41:42-50. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.1.42
  13. Diels RM, Kalra V, DeLoach N Jr, Powers M, Nelson SS. Changes in soft tissue profile of African-Americans following extraction treatment. Angle Orthod 1995;65:285-92.
  14. Bergman RT, Waschak J, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Murphy NC. Longitudinal study of cephalometric soft tissue profile traits between the ages of 6 and 18 years. Angle Orthod 2014;84:48-55. https://doi.org/10.2319/041513-291.1
  15. Lee KJ, Kim SJ. Advanced biomechanics for total arch movement and non-surgical treatment for hyperdivergent faces. Semin Orthod 2018;24:83-94. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2018.01.008
  16. Sharma JN. Skeletal and soft tissue point A and B changes following orthodontic treatment of Nepalese Class I bimaxillary protrusive patients. Angle Orthod 2010;80:91-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/010409-6.1
  17. Zhang S, Chen W, Ding S, Han H, Yu Z. Skelate changes induced by orthodontic in class II division 1 by CBCT: a long-term follow-up prospective study. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:11312-6.
  18. Huang YP, Li WR. Correlation between objective and subjective evaluation of profile in bimaxillary protrusion patients after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2015;85:690-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/070714-476.1
  19. Ning F, Duan YZ. Camouflage treatment in adult skeletal Class III cases by extraction of two lower premolars. Korean J Orthod 2010;40:349-57. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2010.40.5.349
  20. Martinez P, Bellot-Arcis C, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes-Gallardo V. Orthodontic camouflage versus orthognathic surgery for class III deformity: comparative cephalometric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46:490-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2016.12.001
  21. Georgalis K, Woods MG. A study of Class III treatment: orthodontic camouflage vs orthognathic surgery. Aust Orthod J 2015;31:138-48.
  22. Yogosawa F. Predicting soft tissue profile changes concurrent with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1990;60:199-206.
  23. Brock RA 2nd, Taylor RW, Buschang PH, Behrents RG. Ethnic differences in upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:683-91; quiz 755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.026
  24. Dong Y, Huang L, Feng Z, Bai S, Wu G, Zhao Y. Influence of sex and body mass index on facial soft tissue thickness measurements of the Northern Chinese adult population. Forensic Sci Int 2012;222:396.e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.06.004