Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2021 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Evaluation of Treatment Changes in the Maxillary Intercanine and Intermolar Width in Patients with Various Malocclusions: A Study Model Analysis

Isha Aggarwal, Adarsh Deep Kharel, Sanjay Mittal, Mandeep K. Bhullar, Tanzin Palkit

Keywords : intercanine width, intermolar width, study model analysis

Citation Information : Aggarwal I, Kharel AD, Mittal S, Bhullar MK, Palkit T. Evaluation of Treatment Changes in the Maxillary Intercanine and Intermolar Width in Patients with Various Malocclusions: A Study Model Analysis. 2021; 9 (1):43-47.

DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721878

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 12-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  © 2021. Bhojia Dental College and Hospital affiliated to Himachal Pradesh University.


Abstract

Introduction Since extraction and nonextraction is a debatable topic to date, its effects on the changes in the dimension of arch width are unclear. Many investigators suggested that extraction would lead to arch collapse, whereas few others suggested that such changes in dimension would not occur. Aim and Objectives To evaluate the changes in the intercanine and intermolar width in premolar extraction cases in class I and class II div 1 malocclusion cases. Materials and Methods The study included pretreatment and posttreatment study models of 25 patients (14 with class I malocclusion, 11 with class II division 1 malocclusion). Intercanine and intermolar widths were measured and evaluated for both the malocclusions. The difference posttreatment intercanine width and intermolar width between class I and class II division 1 malocclusion were also assessed. The values obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the intercanine and intermolar width pre- and posttreatment for class I patients, but there was a statistically significant difference in the intercanine and intermolar widths in class II patients. When class I and class II patients were compared for the parameters (intercanine/intermolar widths), it showed that there was no statistically significant difference.


PDF Share
  1. Arch-width and perimeter changes in patients with borderline Class I malocclusion treated with extractions or without extractions with air-rotor stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(6):734. e1–734.e7
  2. Hardand soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(4):491–499
  3. The beauty of the face: an orthodontic perspective. J Am Dent Assoc 1987;(Spec No): 89E–95E
  4. Maxillary expansion, long-term stability and smile esthetics. World J Orthod 2001;2:266–272
  5. Arch width after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(1): 25–28
  6. Long-term stability of class I premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(3):277–287
  7. The effects of premolar-extraction treatment: a long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut” extraction and nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;63:257–272
  8. Treatment and posttreatment changes in patients with class II, division 1 malocclusion after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111(1):18–27
  9. Extraction vs nonextraction: arch widths and smile esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003;73(4):354–358
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.