open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 0376-4672
Extraction treatment has been used for a long time to treat crowding or lip protrusion patients and still extraction decision is the most difficult and important decision during diagnosis and treatment planning. If the amount of crowidng is severe, premolar extraction is often considered. Because of their location, premolar extractions would seem to allow for the most straightforward relief of crowding and the improvement of soft tissue profile. But patients and their parents often prefer nonextraction approach if possible and such a preference gives us serious question about the boundary of nonextraction treatment. Because Orthodontic Mini-Implant (OMI) become popular these days, distalization of posterior teeth can be obtained easily without patient's compliance. For this reason, many orthodontists are trying to treat crowding patient with nonextraction than before. But sometime, unexpected side effects are observed including unesthetic profile, impaction of second molar and long treatment time. All the tools for space gaining – extraction, arch expansion, molar distalization and interproximal enamel reduction - have their limitations and indications. Possible side effects and limitations should be carefully considered during the treatment planning. Although Korean patients usually require extraction more often than US or European patients, more knowledge about the tools for space gaining would help us to decrease the rate of extraction and the problems during treatment of crowding patients.
1. Jung MH. Age, extraction rate and jaw surgery rate in Korean orthodontic clinics and small dental hospitals. Korean J Orthod 2012; 42:80-6
2. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Vogels DS, Vogels PB. 2014 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, Part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48:607-30
3. Jackson TH, Guez C, Lin FC, Proffit WR, Ko CC. Extraction frequencies at a university orthodontic clinic in the 21st century:Demographic and diagnostic factors affecting the likelihood of extraction. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2017; 151:456-62
4. Akkaya S, Lorenzo S, Ucem TT. Comparison of dental arch and arch perimeter changes between bonded rapid and slow maxillary expansion procedures. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20:255-61
5. Adkins MD, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Arch perimeter changes on rapid palatal expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 97:194-9
6. Germane N, Lindauer SJ, Rubenstein LK et al. Increase in arch perimeter due to orthodontic expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991; 100:421-7
7. Johner AM, Pandis N, Dudic , Kiliaridis S. Quantitative comparison of 3 enamel-stripping devices in vitro: How precisely can we strip teeth? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2013; 143; s168-72
8. Ferro F, Funiciello G, Perillo L, Chiodini P. Mandibular lip bumper treatment and second molar eruption disturbances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011; 139:622-7
9. Rubin RL, Bacetti T, McNamara Jr JA. Mandibular second molar eruption difficulties related to the maintenance of arch perimeter in the mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2012; 141:146-52
10. Hudson AL. A study of the effects of mesiodistal reduction of mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod 1956; 42:615-24
11. Stroud JL, English J, Buschang PH. Enamel thickness of the posterior dentition: its implications for nonextraction treatment. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68:141-6
12. Jung MH. A comparison of second premolar extraction and miniimplant total arch distalization with interproximal stripping. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83:680-85