OCCLUSAL OUTCOME OF NON-EXTRACTION AND ALL FIRST PREMOLARS EXTRACTION TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH CLASS-I MALOCCLUSION
AbstractBackground: Class-1 malocclusion commonly presents with crowding and poses an aesthetic concern to patients. An orthodontist may encounter a variety of dental problems and must handle them strategically to establish adequate occlusal relationships. Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the occlusal characteristics of patients who have undergone non-extraction or all first premolars extraction treatment for class I malocclusion using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. Methods: The pre-treatment and post treatment dental casts of 94 subjects with class-I malocclusion were retrospectively screened. The sample was distributed into two groups, i.e., non-extraction and all first premolars extraction groups. The Mann Whitney-U test was used to compare the mean percentage improvement in the PAR scores between the two groups. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean percentage improvement in the non-extraction group was 74.28% in the non-extraction group and 74.5% in the all first premolars extraction group. A significant difference (p=0.04) was found between the pre-treatment PAR scores for the two treatment modalities. There was no significant difference between the post treatment PAR scores (p=0.45) and the mean percentage improvement in PAR scores (p=0.41) between the treatment groups. Conclusions: The improvement in occlusal characteristics in patients who underwent non-extraction treatment and all first premolar extraction treatment was comparable as assessed through mean percentage improvement in PAR scores.Keywords: Angle class I; Index; Occlusion; Malocclusion
Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, Akerman JL, editors. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier/Mosby; 2013.
Illeri Z, Bascifti FA, Malkoc S, Ramoglu SI. Comparison of the outcomes of the lower incisor extraction, premolar extraction and non-extraction treatments. Eur J Orthod 2012;34(6):681–5.
Nazir R, Amanat N, Rizvi KR. Pattern, prevalence and severity of malocclusion among university students. J Pak Dent Assoc 2013;22(1):13–8.
Melo L, Ono Y, Takagi Y. Indicators of mandibular dental crowding in the mixed dentition. Pediatr Dent 2001;23(2):118–22.
Jansen G, Barros SE, de Freitas MR, Henriques JF, Pinzan A. Class II treatment efficiency in maxillary premolar extraction and non-extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(4):490–8.
Konstantonis D, Anthopulou C, Makou M. Extraction decision and identification of treatment predictors in class I malocclusions. Prog Orthod 2013;14:47.
Mahmood TMA, Qadir CA. Persuading factors for tooth extraction decision in treatment of class I malocclusion among orthodontists in Sulaimani city. J Dent Med Sci 2015;14(8):20–8.
Konstantonis D. The impact of extraction vs non-extraction treatment on soft tissue changes in class I borderline malocclusions. Angle Orthod 2012:82(2);209–17.
Summers CJ. The occlusal index: a system for identifying and scoring occlusal disorders. Am J Orthod 1971;59(6):552–67.
Eismann D. A method of evaluating the efficiency of orthodontic treatment. Trans Eur Orthod Soc 1974:223–32.
Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontics treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989;11(3):309–20.
Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’Brien KD, Buchanan IB. Jones R, Stephans CD, et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14(2):125–39.
Dyken RA, Sadowsky LP, Hurst D. Orthodontic outcomes assessment using the Peer Assessment Rating Index. Angle Orthod 2001;71(3):164–8.
Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). J Orthod 2000;27(2):149–62.
Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, et al. The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(3);270–8.
Buchanan IB, Shaw WC, Richmond S, O’Brien KD, Andrews M. A comparison of the reliability and validity of the PAR index and Summers’Occlusal index. Eur J Orthod 1993;15(1):27–31.
Pickering EA, Vig P. The Occlusal Index used to assess orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1976;2(1):47–51.
Mascarenhas AK, Vig K. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in educational and private practice settings. J Dent Educ 2001;66(1):94–9.
Firestone AR, Beck FM, Beglin FM, Vig KW. Evaluation of the peer assessment rating (PAR) index as an index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(5):463–9.
Shaw WC, Richmond S, O’Brien KD. The use of occlusal indices: a European perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop1995;107(1):1–10.
Akinci Cansunar H, Uysal T. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in nonextraction, 2 maxillary premolar extraction, and 4 premolar extraction protocols with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145(5):595–602.
Freitas KM, Freitas DS, Valarellia FP Freitas MR, Janson G. PAR evaluation of treated Class I extraction patients. Angle Orthod 2008;78(2):270–4.
Bäckström H, Mohlin B. Quality assessment in orthodontics using the IOTN and PAR indices. Tandläkartidningen 1998;90:49–57.
Willems G, Heidbuchel R, Verdonk A, Carels C. Treatment and standard evaluation using the peer assessment rating index. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5(1):57–62.
Stalpers MJ, Booij JW, Bronkhorst EM, Jagtman AM, Katsaros C. Extraction of maxillary first permanent molars in patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(3):316–23.
Graber TM, Vanarsdall Jr RL, Vig KWL, editors. Orthodontics Current: principles and techniques. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2012.
Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. Orthodontic treatment-improvement and standards using the peer assessment rating index. Angle Orthod 2006;76(2):260–4.
de Frietas KM, de Frietas MR, Janson G, Pinzan A, Henriques JF. Retrospective analysis of orthodontic treatment outcomes and its relation to post treatment stability. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14(5):324–9.
Ahmad N, Fida M. Orthodontic treatment outcome assessment using peer assessment Rating (PAR) Index. Pak Oral Dent J 2010;30(2):380–6.
Holman JK, Hans MG, Nelson S, Power MP. An assessment of extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. Angle Orthod 1998;68(6):527–34.
Birkeland K, Furevik J, Boe OE, Wisth PJ. Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index. Eur J Orthod 1997;19(3):279–88.
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.