Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2013.29.2.119

The Esthetic Impact of Extraction and Nonextraction Treatments on Korean People  

Lee, Se-Hyeong (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University)
Chung, Dong-Hwa (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University)
Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University)
Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University)
Lee, Sang-Min (Department of orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankoook University)
Publication Information
Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science / v.29, no.2, 2013 , pp. 119-126 More about this Journal
Abstract
The concept of extraction in orthodontic treatment has been changed many times. Even today, criteria of extraction or nonextraction is still changing. In this study, changes depending on the evaluator's perception of treatment outcomes were compared in both extraction and nonextraction cases. In this study, premolar extracted 59 patients and nonextracted 60 patients, totally 119 patients who finished orthodontic treatment in Dankook University Dental Hospital orthodontic clinic were enrolled. Evaluation sections made up of specialists and laypersons assessed soft tissue traced from lateral cephalometric radiographs with visual analogue scale before and after the treatment. And the results were statistically analyzed. Thus, the conclusions drawn are as follows: 1. Average score is 5.76 in extraction, which is larger than 5.28 of nonextraction case. Improvement of facial profile was more favorably accepted in extraction case. 2. 5.875 in the group of specialists were higher evaluation than 5.165 in the group of layperson. 3. Specialists gave significantly higher ratings in the extraction than nonextraction. 4. A higher rating in extraction case of the layperson group has no significant difference with nonextraction case. 5. Nonextraction patients were given higher ratings from specialist group. 6. A higher rating of specialist group in extraction case has no significant difference with layperson group.
Keywords
Extraction; Nonextracion; Visual analogue scale;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Bowman SJ. More than lip service: facial esthetics in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:1173-81.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Proffit WR. Forty-year review of extraction frequencies at a university orthodontic clinic. Angle Orthod 1994;64:407-14.
3 Peck H, Peck S. A concept of facial esthetics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:284-318.
4 Peck S, Peck L. Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics. Semin Orthod 1995;1:105-26   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Scott SH, Johnston LE Jr. The perceived impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on matched samples of African American patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:352-60.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Bowman SJ, Johnston LE Jr. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle Orthod. 2000 Feb;70(1):3-10.
7 Wangerin K, Gubisch W. Improving the contour and preserving the profile of the lower third of the face. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir. 1997 May;1 Suppl 1:S39-49.   DOI
8 Soh J, Chew MT, Wong HB. A comparative assessment of the perception of Chinese facial profile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Jun; 127(6):692-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Konstantonis D. The impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes in Class I borderline malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2012 Mar;82(2):209-17. Epub 2011 Sep 20.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Xu TM, Liu Y, Huang W, Lin JX. Cephalometric comparison of soft-tissue morphology between extraction and non-extraction orthodontic treatment in borderline cases. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2004 Dec;36(6):650-4.
11 Bell R, Kiyak HA, Joondeph DR, McNeill RW, Wallen TR. Perceptions of facial profile and their influence on the decision to undergo orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod. 1985 Oct;88(4):323-32.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod. 1978 Jun;73(6):648-57.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2012 Feb 9.
14 Phillips C, Griffin T, Bennett E. Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1995;10(2): 127-35.
15 Naini FB, Donaldson AN, McDonald F, Cobourne MT. Assessing the influence of asymmeftry affecting the mandible and chin point on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Jan;70(1):192-206. Epub 2011 May 14.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Naini FB, Donaldson AN, Cobourne MT, McDonald F. Assessing the influence of mandibular prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Aug 16.
17 Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratings of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am J Orthod. 1985 Nov;88(5): 402-8.   DOI   ScienceOn