ESTHETIC IMPACT OF TOOTH EXTRACTION IN PAKISTANI PATIENTS
AbstractBackground: The norms of Pakistani female patients differ from other Asian patients, this difference should be considered during diagnosis and treatment planning and they should be treated with different protocols in terms of tooth extraction and non-extraction treatments. The present study will provide clinical guidelines to assist in the decision-making process for borderline patients when considering extraction or non-extraction in the orthodontic treatment plan. Methods: Panels of 40 dentists and 40 laypersons evaluated randomly presented pre-treatment and post-treatment soft-tissue profiles of 30 extraction and 30 non-extraction female patients. Borderline patients were selected based on their initial diagnostic records. Two panels were asked to compare the pre-treatment and post-treatment soft tissue profile tracings and to quantify their perceptions of the aesthetic impact of treatment change using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: The mean VAS scores of dentists and laypersons for extraction treatment strategy were +23.03±27.89 and +19.41±26.79 mm (p=0.182) respectively. For non-extraction treatment strategy, mean VAS scores of dentists and laypersons were +12.51±26.56 and +14.55±21.22 mm (p=0.448) respectively. The mean change in lower lip protrusion after extraction treatment was 2.15±3.38 mm (p=0.002) and after non-extraction treatment was 0.83±2.75 mm (p=0.109). Conclusions: No significant difference was found between dentists and laypersons in their perception of aesthetic impact of a treatment strategy. There was significant change in lower lip protrusion only after the extraction treatment strategy.Keywords: Aesthetic impact, treatment strategies, borderline patients, Pakistan
Angle EH, editor. Treatment of Malocculsion of the Teeth. Philadelphia: SS white dental manufacturing Co; 1907.
Tweed CH. Indications for the extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 1944;30(8):405–28.
Ackerman JL, Proffit WR, Sarver DM. The emerging soft tissue paradigm in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Orthod Res 1999;2(2):49–52.
Baumrind S, Korn EL, Boyd RL, Maxwell R. The decision to extract: part II. Analysis of clinicians' stated reasons for extraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:393–402.
Paquette DE, Beattie JR, Johnston LE. A long-term comparison of nonextraction and premolar extraction edgewise therapy in "borderline" Class II patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:1–14.
Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston LE Jr. The effects of premolar-extraction: a long-term comparison of outcomes in "clear-cut" extraction and nonextraction Class II patients. Angle Orthod 1993;63:257–72.
Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile estheties after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:162–7.
Little RM, Riedel RA, Stein A. Mandibular arch length increase during the mixed dentition: postretention evaluation of stability and relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:393–404.
Dugoni SA, Lee JS, Varela J, Dugoni AA. Early mixed dentition treatment: postretention evaluation of stability and relapse. Angle Orthod 1995;65:311–20.
Burrow SJ. The Impact of Extractions on Facial and Smile Aesthetics. Semin Orthod 2012;18:202–9.
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;103:452–8.
Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:220–30.
Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR. Profile changes in patients treated with and without extractions: assessments by lay people. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:639–44.
Bravo LA, Canut JA, Pascual A, Bravo B. Comparison of the changes in facial profile after orthodontic treatment, with and without extractions. Br J Orthod 1997;24:25–34.
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.
James RD. A comparative study of facial profiles in extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:265–76.
Hagler BL, Lupini J, Johnston LE. Long-term comparison of extraction and nonextraction alternatives in matched samples of African American patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:393–403.
Boley JC, Pontier JP, Smith S, Fulbright M. Facial changes in extraction and nonextraction patients. Angle Orthod 1998;68:539–46.
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;116:352–8.
Bowman SJ, Johnston LE Jr. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle Orthod 2000;70(1):3–10.
Lim HJ, Ko KT, Hwang HS. Esthetic impact of premolar extraction and nonextraction treatments on Korean borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:524–31.
Lines PA, Lines RR, Lines CA. Profilemetrics and facial esthetics. Am J Orthod 1978;73:648–57.
Baumrind S, Korn EL, Boyd RL, Maxwell R. The decision to extract: part I. interclinician agreement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;109:297–309.
Baumrind S. Adult orthodontic therapy: extraction versus non-extraction. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1(2):130.
Kerr WJ, O'Donnell JM. Panel perception of facial attractiveness. Br J Orthod 1990;17:299-304.
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(1):42–50.
Shaikh AJ, Alvi AR. Comparison of cephalometric norms of esthetically pleasing faces. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2009;19:754–8.
Ahmad F, Naeem S, Asad S. Soft tissue profile of a Pakistani sample with class I occlusion. Pak Oral Dent J 2010;30:104–7.
Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain. 1983;17:45–56.
Farrow AL, Zarrinnia K, Azizi K. Bimaxillary protrusion in black Americans. an esthetic evaluation and the treatment considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:240–50.
Cox NH, van der Linden FPGM. Facial harmony. Am J Orthod 1971;60:175–83.
De Smit A, Dermaut L. Soft-tissue profile preference. Am J Orthod 1984;86:67–73.
Kerns LL, Silveira AM, Kerns DC, Recennitter FJ. Esthetic preference of the frontal and profile views of the same smile. J Esthet Dent 1997;9:76–85.