Open Access

Dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes in class II subdivision treatment with asymmetric extraction protocols

Progress in Orthodontics201718:39

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0193-x

Received: 19 July 2017

Accepted: 29 September 2017

Published: 4 December 2017

Abstract

Background

This study cephalometrically compared the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes consequent to one and three-premolar extraction protocols of class II subdivision malocclusion treatment.

Methods

A sample of 126 lateral cephalometric radiographs from 63 patients was selected and divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 31 type 1 class II subdivision malocclusion patients treated with asymmetric extractions of two maxillary premolars and one mandibular premolar on the class I side, with an initial mean age of 13.58 years. Group 2 consisted of 32 type 2 class II subdivision malocclusion patients treated with asymmetric extraction of one maxillary first premolar on the class II side, with an initial mean age of 13.98 years. t test was used for intergroup comparison at the pre- and posttreatment stages and to compare the treatment changes.

Results

Group 1 had greater maxillomandibular sagittal discrepancy reduction and greater maxillary first molar extrusion. Group 2 had mandibular incisor labial inclination and protrusion, and group 1 had mandibular incisor lingual inclination and retraction. Maxillary molar asymmetry increased in group 2, while mandibular molar asymmetry increased in group 1.

Conclusions

The treatment changes produced by these two class II subdivision protocols are different to adequately satisfy the different needs for types 1 and 2 class II subdivision malocclusions.

Keywords

Class II subdivisionPremolar extractionsAsymmetric extractionsCephalometrics

Background

Two main types of class II subdivision malocclusions have been identified. Type 1 class II subdivision malocclusions are characterized by distal positioning of the mandibular first molar on the class II side, coincidence of the maxillary dental midline with the midfacial plane and deviation of the mandibular dental midline to the class II side, in a frontal clinical view [15]. Type 2 class II subdivision malocclusions are characterized by mesial positioning of the maxillary first molar on the class II side, deviation of the maxillary dental midline to the class I side and coincidence of the mandibular dental midline with the midfacial plane [4, 5]. There is also a third type, with combined characteristics of the first two types. Consequently, in this type, the maxillary midline is deviated to one side and the mandibular midline is deviated to the other [4, 5].

One of the treatment options for type 1 class II subdivision malocclusions consists in extractions of two maxillary premolars and one mandibular premolar on the class I side, as long as the facial profile and/or the amount of crowding allow extractions to be performed [1, 612]. For type 2 class II subdivision malocclusions, a treatment option may consist in extracting one maxillary premolar on the class II side [1, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14]. Therefore, it is speculated that the amount of dentoskeletal and soft tissue retraction is larger for the first treatment option. However, this has not been investigated.

When faced with the third type of class II subdivision malocclusion, the orthodontist may have to choose whether to treat it is as a type 1 or type 2 class II subdivision malocclusion, with the mentioned protocols. Therefore, knowing the differences in the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes provided by both treatment protocols, it will be possible to select the best protocol to address the characteristics of the specific malocclusion.

Therefore, the objective of this work is to test the following null hypothesis: dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes are similar between type 1 class II subdivision malocclusions treated with two maxillary and one mandibular premolar extractions to type 2 class II subdivision malocclusions treated with one maxillary premolar extraction.

Methods

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Brazil. Sample size calculation, considering an 80% of test power at a significance level of 5%, with a minimum mean difference to be detected of 0.85 mm in 1-NB, with a standard deviation of 1.19 mm, revealed that 31 individuals in each of the two groups were the minimum amount necessary [9].

Therefore, 63 patients, of White Mediterranean ancestry, initially presenting with class II subdivision malocclusions were retrospectively selected from the files of the Orthodontic Department at Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Brazil. These patients were treated between 1998 and 2012 and were divided into two groups, according to their treatment approach. Group 1 consisted of 31 patients with type 1 class II subdivision malocclusions, with initial and final mean ages of 13.58 and 16.83 years, respectively, and a mean treatment time of 3.25 years, treated with asymmetric extractions of two maxillary premolars and one mandibular premolar on the class I side. Group 2 consisted of 32 patients with type 2 class II subdivision malocclusions, with initial and final mean ages of 13.98 and 16.90 years, respectively, and a mean treatment time of 2.92 years, treated with asymmetric extraction of one maxillary premolar on the class II side (Figs. 1 and 2).
Fig. 1

Group 1 patient – front (a), right side (b), left side (c)

Fig. 2

Group 2 patient – front (a), right side (b), left side (c)

The primary selection criterion was that patients presented a full class II molar relationship on one side and class I molar relationship on the opposite side. Additional selection criteria were: presence of all maxillary and mandibular permanent teeth up to the first molars, absence of supernumerary and impacted teeth, agenesis and anomalies of size and/or shape of the teeth, no facial trauma or medical history that could have altered the normal growth of their apical bases, no previous orthodontic treatment, initial and final records in satisfactory conditions, and good occlusal outcomes [2, 4].

All patients were treated with conventional edgewise or preadjusted fixed appliances (Roth prescription), both with 0.022 × 0.028 in. metalic brackets, by graduate students supervised by the same clinical instructor (GJ). Fixed or removable functional appliances were not used. The usual wire sequence began with 0.014 in. Niti archwires, followed by 0.016 in. Niti and 0.018, 0.020, and finally 0.018 × 0.025 in. stainless steel archwires. Thereafter, en-masse retraction of the anterior teeth was performed. Anchorage reinforcement with cervical extraoral headgear and lip bumpers (at the gingival margin of incisors) [9, 15] were used in all patients to maintain the original posterior teeth anteroposterior relationships. Class II elastics were used 18 h a day, for minor anteroposterior adjustment in the final stages, with 0.018 × 0.025 in. stainless steel archwires. Deep bites were usually corrected with accentuated and reversed curve of Spee on the archwires. As retention, the patients in both groups used Hawley plates on the maxillary arch and canine-to-canine bonded retainers.

The pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were obtained from each patient and scanned to allow the acquisition of images by Dolphin® Imaging 11.5 (Patterson Dental Supply, Inc., Chatsworth, CA). The magnification factors of the radiographic images that varied from 6 to 9.8% were corrected by the cephalometric software. Subsequently, 35 landmarks in the dentoskeletal facial structures and 17 landmarks in the soft tissue were marked (Figs. 3 and 4, Table 1).
Fig. 3

Skeletal and dental variables. Angular measurements: SNA; SNB; ANB; NAP; SN.GoGn; Mx1.NA; Md1.NB; IMPA. Linear measurements: Co-A; Co-Gn; LAFH; Overbite, Overjet, Mx1-NA; Md1-NB; Mx1-PP; Mx6-PP; Md1-GoGn; Md6-GoGn; Mx Molar Asymmetry; Md Molar Asymmetry

Fig. 4

Soft tissue variables. Linear measurements (a): UL-S Line; Prn-H; LL-S Line. Angular measurements (b): Z Angle; N′.Sn.Pog’; Cm.Sn.UL

Table 1

Skeletal, dental and soft tissue cephalometric variables

Maxillary skeletal components

 SNA

SN to NA angle

 Co-A

Condylion to A-point distance

Mandibular skeletal components

 SNB

SN to NB angle

 Co-Gn

Condylion to gnathion distance

Maxillomandibular relationship

 ANB

NA to NB angle

 NAP

Angle between lines NA and AP

Growth pattern

 SN.GoGn

SN to GoGn angle

 LAFH

ANS, anterior nasal spine to menton distance

Maxillary dentoalveolar components

 Mx1.NA

Maxillary incisor long axis to NA angle

 Mx1-NA

Distance between most anterior point of crown of maxillary incisor and NA line

 Mx1-PP

Perpendicular distance between the incisal edge of the maxillary incisor and the palatal plane

 Mx6-PP

Perpendicular distance between the maxillary first molar mesial and distal cusps midpoint and the palatal plane

 Mx Molar asymmetry

Difference in the distance between most mesial points of right and left maxillary first molars, perpendicular to Svert Line (Mx6-Svert)

Mandibular dentoalveolar components

 Md1.NB

Mandibular incisor long axis to NB angle

 Md1-NB

Distance between most anterior point of crown of mandibular incisor and NB line

 IMPA

Incisor mandibular plane angle

 Md1-GoGn

Perpendicular distance between the incisal edge of the mandibular incisor and the mandibular plane

 Md6-GoGn

Perpendicular distance between the mesiobuccal cusp tip of the mandibular first molar and the mandibular plane

 Md Molar asymmetry

Difference in the distance between most mesial points of right and left maxillary first molars, perpendicular to Svert Line (Md6-Svert)

Dental relationship

 Overjet

Distance between incisal edges of maxillary and mandibular central incisors, parallel to occlusal plane

 Overbite

Distance between incisal edges of maxillary and mandibular central incisors, perpendicular to occlusal plane

Upper lip

 UL-S line

Distance from the upper lip to Steiner’s S line (line from Pg’ to Cl)

 Prn-H

Distance between H line and the most anterior point on the nose

Lower lip

 LL-S line

Distance from the lower lip to Steiner’s S line

Facial convexity and nasolabial angle

 Z angle

Angle formed by the intersection of Frankfort horizontal plane and a line connecting the soft-tissue chin (Pg’) and the most protrusive lip point

 N’.Sn.Pog’

Facial convexity

 Cm.Sn.UL

Nasolabial angle

For dental asymmetry assessment, two digital tracings were performed for each patient at T1 and T2. In the first tracing, linear measurements were made from the mesial point of the most mesial maxillary and mandibular molar, perpendicularly, to the Svert Line (6-Svert). In the second tracing, linear measurements were made from the mesial point of the most distal maxillary and mandibular molar, perpendicularly, to the same vertical reference line (6-Svert). Asymmetry was calculated as the difference between the most mesial and distal molars for the maxillary and mandibular molars [2, 9].

The Little irregularity index [16] was used to calculate crowding at the pretreatment stage. This index was originally used to evaluate anterior mandibular dental crowding, and has been adapted to also quantify maxillary anterior crowding [17].

Error study

Twenty-two lateral cephalograms were randomly selected and remeasured by the same examiner (EBL), after a 30-day interval. Random errors were calculated according to Dahlberg’s formula (Se2 = ∑d 2/2n) [18], where S 2 is the error variance and d is the difference between 2 determinations of the same variable and the systematic errors were evaluated with dependent t tests, at P < 0.05 [19].

Statistical analyses

The means and standard deviations (SD) for each variable were calculated for both groups. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were applied to verify normal distribution of the variables. The results of the tests were nonsignificant for all variables. Therefore, intergroup comparability was evaluated with t tests regarding the initial and final ages, treatment time and the cephalometric characteristics at the pretreatment stage. Chi-square test was used to compare sex distribution in the groups.

t tests were also used to compare the treatment changes and the cephalometric status at the posttreatment stage. All tests were performed with Statistica software (Version 7, StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA), at P < .05.

Results

The random errors ranged from 0.44 (overbite) to 1.38 mm (CoGn) and from 0.77 (SND) to 1.45° (Cm.Sn.Ls). Only two variables (LAFH and Z angle) presented significant systematic errors. The groups were comparable regarding the initial age, treatment time, sex distribution, and initial occlusal characteristics (Table 2). At the pretreatment stage, group 2 had significantly smaller maxillary incisor dentoalveolar development, greater maxillary molar asymmetry, smaller mandibular molar asymmetry, greater nasal prominence, and smaller lower lip protrusion (Table 3).
Table 2

Intergroup baseline comparability (t and Chi-square tests)

 

Group 1—3 extractions (n = 31)

Group 2—1 extraction (n = 32)

 

Variables

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

P

Initial age

13.58

2.26

13.98

1.66

0.425a

Final age

16.83

2.39

16.90

1.85

0.888a

Treatment time

3.25

1.02

2.92

1.02

0.210a

Sex

 Male

13

 

12

  

 Female

18

 

20

 

0.719b

Maxillary Little Irregularity Index

5.33

4.02

4.22

2.74

0.202a

Mandibular Little Irregularity Index

2.52

1.52

2.43

1.74

0.824a

a t test

bChi-square test

Table 3

Intergroup comparison at the pretreatment stage (t tests)

 

Group 1—3 extractions (n = 31)

Group 2—1 extraction (n = 32)

 

Variables

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

P

Maxillary component

 SNA (°)

84.10

4.10

83.28

4.04

0.429

 Co-A (mm)

82.65

3.81

83.41

3.53

0.415

Mandibular component

 SNB (°)

79.32

3.98

79.26

3.06

0.946

 Co-Gn (mm)

110.95

4.59

111.96

5.89

0.451

Maxillomandibular relationship

 ANB (°)

4.77

1.75

4.02

2.19

0.137

 NAP (°)

171.65

4.39

172.88

4.11

0.254

Growth pattern

 SN.GoGn (°)

29.19

3.96

27.86

4.36

0.210

 LAFH (mm)

63.43

4.33

62.32

4.41

0.316

Maxillary dentoalveolar component

 Mx1.NA (°)

24.45

5.49

25.75

7.16

0.423

 Mx1-NA (mm)

5.53

2.44

5.50

3.86

0.971

 Mx1-PP (mm)

28.40

2.23

26.81

2.95

0.018a

 Mx6-PP (mm)

20.35

2.36

19.43

1.98

0.098

 Mx Molar asymmetry (mm)

1.99

0.33

2.19

0.39

0.025a

Mandibular dentoalveolar component

 Md1.NB (°)

28.82

5.01

27.85

6.02

0.489

 Md1-NB (mm)

5.87

1.41

5.94

2.10

0.872

 IMPA (°)

97.56

5.83

99.22

7.93

0.350

 Md1-GoGn (mm)

35.97

2.29

35.46

2.86

0.442

 Md6-GoGn (mm)

26.83

2.19

27.32

2.33

0.387

 Md Molar asymmetry (mm)

2.09

0.46

1.79

0.57

0.025a

Dental relationship

 Overjet (mm)

4.88

1.80

4.96

1.78

0.856

 Overbite (mm)

1.89

2.31

1.97

1.10

0.863

Upper lip

 UL-S line (mm)

2.41

2.42

1.41

1.98

0.077

 Prn-H (mm)

0.91

4.56

3.31

4.00

0.030a

Lower lip

 LL-S line (mm)

3.50

3.04

1.95

2.46

0.029a

Facial convexity and nasolabial angle

 Z Angle (°)

75.85

5.51

73.92

6.61

0.214

 N’.Sn.Pog’(°)

156.08

5.13

157.63

6.07

0.276

 Cm.Sn.UL (°)

105.07

8.93

101.23

8.26

0.081

aStatistically significant at P < 0.05

During treatment, there was significantly greater maxillomandibular relationship improvement, decrease in facial convexity, and increase in molar dentoalveolar height in group 1 (Table 4). Group 2 presented significantly greater increase in maxillary molar asymmetry. There was significant differences regarding mandibular incisor behavior. While group 2 had labial tipping and protrusion of the incisors, group 1 had lingual tipping and retrusion. Group 1 had greater increase in mandibular molar asymmetry.
Table 4

Intergroup comparison of treatment changes (t tests)

 

Group 1—3 extractions (n = 31)

Group 2—1 extraction (n = 32)

 

Variables

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

P

Maxillary component

 SNA (°)

− 1.73

3.17

− 0.58

2.79

0.131

 Co-A (mm)

− 0.95

4.12

− 0.29

2.00

0.416

Mandibular component

 SNB (°)

0.49

2.27

− 0.02

2.27

0.376

 Co-Gn (mm)

3.55

5.14

1.98

3.27

0.153

Maxillomandibular relationship

 ANB (°)

− 2.21

2.19

− 0.56

1.87

0.002a

 NAP (°)

2.95

4.44

0.49

2.79

0.010a

Growth pattern

 SN.GoGn (°)

− 0.58

2.89

− 1.18

3.12

0.434

 LAFH (mm)

2.45

2.56

1.10

3.51

0.088

Maxillary dentoalveolar component

 Mx1.NA (°)

− 1.11

6.38

1.91

7.80

0.098

 Mx1-NA (mm)

− 0.68

3.09

− 0.38

3.27

0.716

 Mx1-PP (mm)

− 0.66

1.24

− 0.43

1.74

0.533

 Mx6-PP (mm)

1.96

2.10

0.78

1.98

0.024a

 Mx Molar asymmetry (mm)

− 0.16

0.43

0.75

1.13

0.000a

Mandibular dentoalveolar component

 Md1.NB (°)

− 1.03

5.08

3.09

4.59

0.001a

 Md1-NB (mm)

− 0.47

0.96

0.86

1.34

0.000a

 IMPA (°)

− 0.67

5.58

3.13

5.62

0.009a

 Md1-GoGn (mm)

0.98

2.05

0.49

1.86

0.325

 Md6-GoGn (mm)

2.12

1.67

1.40

1.63

0.087

 Md Molar asymmetry (mm)

1.06

0.57

0.09

0.72

0.000a

Dental relationship

 Overjet (mm)

− 2.23

1.72

− 2.03

1.87

0.648

 Overbite (mm)

− 0.88

2.27

− 1.16

1.31

0.551

Upper lip

 UL-S Line (mm)

− 1.85

2.34

− 1.28

1.44

0.241

 Prn-H (mm)

3.80

4.43

2.65

2.88

0.223

Lower lip

 LL-S Line (mm)

− 1.68

2.27

− 0.88

1.47

0.101

Facial convexity and nasolabial angle

 Z Angle (°)

2.15

4.72

0.68

5.41

0.254

 N’.Sn.Pog’(°)

1.41

4.68

0.03

3.89

0.207

 Cm.Sn.UL (°)

1.71

7.73

1.69

9.22

0.992

aStatistically significant at P < 0.05

At the posttreatment stage, group 1 demonstrated significantly greater LAFH, smaller labial tipping, and greater dentoalveolar height of the maxillary incisors (Table 5). Group 1 also presented greater maxillary molar dentoalveolar height and smaller maxillary molar asymmetry. Group 2 presented greater labial tipping and protrusion of the mandibular incisors, smaller mandibular molar asymmetry, and greater facial convexity.
Table 5

Intergroup comparison at the posttreatment stage (t tests)

 

Group 1—3 extractions (n = 31)

Group 2—1 extraction (n = 32)

 

Variables

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

P

Maxillary component

 SNA (°)

82.37

4.75

82.70

4.65

0.778

 Co-A (mm)

81.77

4.00

83.12

3.46

0.156

Mandibular component

 SNB (°)

79.81

4.22

79.24

2.55

0.518

 Co-Gn (mm)

114.50

6.30

113.95

5.36

0.708

Maxillomandibular relationship

 ANB (°)

2.56

2.44

3.46

2.83

0.183

 NAP (°)

174.60

3.95

173.38

3.86

0.218

Growth pattern

 SN.GoGn (°)

28.61

5.45

26.68

4.80

0.140

 LAFH (mm)

65.88

4.76

63.42

4.77

0.044a

Maxillary dentoalveolar component

 Mx1.NA (°)

23.34

5.21

27.66

8.11

0.014a

 Mx1-NA (mm)

4.85

2.42

5.12

4.13

0.758

 Mx1-PP (mm)

27.74

2.27

26.38

2.81

0.039a

 Mx6-PP (mm)

22.31

2.21

20.20

2.19

0.000a

 Mx Molar asymmetry (mm)

1.83

0.42

2.94

1.07

0.000a

Mandibular dentoalveolar component

 Md1.NB (°)

27.79

5.18

30.94

5.13

0.018a

 Md1-NB (mm)

5.42

1.39

6.80

2.00

0.002a

 IMPA (°)

96.89

6.49

102.34

7.39

0.002a

 Md1-GoGn (mm)

36.95

2.94

35.95

2.89

0.180

 Md6-GoGn (mm)

28.95

2.28

28.72

2.58

0.713

 Md Molar asymmetry (mm)

3.15

0.58

1.88

0.54

0.000a

Dental relationship

 Overjet (mm)

2.65

0.68

2.94

0.73

0.109

 Overbite (mm)

1.01

0.74

0.81

0.95

0.353

 Upper lip

 UL-S Line (mm)

0.56

2.67

0.14

2.55

0.524

 Prn-H (mm)

4.72

5.07

5.96

4.64

0.312

Lower lip

 LL-S Line (mm)

1.81

2.86

1.07

2.48

0.272

Facial convexity and nasolabial angle

 Z Angle (°)

77.99

6.95

74.59

4.46

0.023a

 N’.Sn.Pog’(°)

157.49

5.94

157.67

5.90

0.905

 Cm.Sn.UL (°)

106.79

9.51

102.93

10.55

0.132

aStatistically significant at P < 0.05

Discussion

Groups’ comparability

Only class II subdivision malocclusion patients, with complete class II on one side and class I on the other, independently of the associated cephalometric factors were included [7]. Group 1 had significantly greater maxillary incisor dentoalveolar height, smaller maxillary molar asymmetry, and greater mandibular molar asymmetry (Table 3). The greater maxillary incisor dentoalveolar height suggests a slightly more accentuated vertical growth pattern and the differences in molar asymmetry are characteristics of the two types of subdivision malocclusions [46, 11, 20]. Group 1 had also greater lower lip protrusion which might also have contributed for the extraction treatment in this group. However, these slight differences should not interfere with the comparison.

Treatment changes and posttreatment status

The greater reduction in maxillomandibular relationship in group 1 may be consequent to the greater number of extractions in the maxillary arch, and increased need for class II elastics or headgear, to reinforce anchorage, that consequently produced a non-significantly greater maxillary retraction [2123], Table 4. Group 1 also had a non-significantly greater increase in mandibular growth. These non-significant greater changes in group 1, when associated, might have contributed for a significantly greater reduction in maxillomandibular relationship than group 2. Additionally, these associated greater non-significant changes might have also contributed for a greater reduction in skeletal facial convexity in group 1. However, these greater treatment changes of group 1 were not enough to produce intergroup differences at the posttreatment stage (Table 5).

Despite there were no significant intergroup differences in maxillary incisor treatment changes, they were significantly more palatally tipped and had greater dentoalveolar height in group 1, at the posttreatment stage (Tables 4 and 5). The greater palatal inclination was probably consequent to the non-significant greater palatal tipping that occurred during treatment in this group because of incisor retraction to close the two maxillary premolar extraction spaces. Group 1 already had greater dentoalveolar height at the pretreatment stage and because the vertical treatment changes were similar in the groups, the initial intergroup pretreatment difference was maintained.

The greater increase in molar dentoalveolar height in group 1 was probably due to greater need of intermaxillary elastics and/or headgear use, associated with the slightly greater vertical growth pattern of this group [7, 9, 24], Table 4. The three premolar extraction protocol performed in group 1 requires greater amount of anchorage reinforcement during anterior retraction, compared to the one premolar extraction protocol performed in group 2. Therefore, this may have contributed to more extrusion in group 1. Consequently to this, LAFH and maxillary molar dentoalveolar height were significantly greater in group 1, at the posttreatment stage, which usually occurs [9, 24], Table 5.

Because group 2 had only one maxillary premolar extraction, it is quite obvious that maxillary molar asymmetry had greater increase in this group than in group 1, which increased even more the significant initial intergroup difference in molar asymmetry (Tables 4 and 5). Nevertheless, this amount of asymmetry between the maxillary molars in group 2 is not clinically relevant and does not bring any decrease in smile attractiveness [13, 25, 26].

The significant intergroup differences in mandibular incisor behavior was consequent to the non-extraction treatment in group 2 and one premolar extraction treatment in group 1 (Table 4). Therefore, there was mandibular incisor labial inclination and protrusion resulting from correction of the anterior crowding and leveling of the curve of Spee without mandibular premolar extraction in group 2 [11, 27, 28]. In group 1, there was retraction and lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors as a result of space closure of one mandibular premolar extraction [13, 29]. Consequent to these different changes, the mandibular incisors of group 1 were significantly more lingually tipped and retruded than those of group 2 at the posttreatment stage (Table 5).

Similarly to the maxillary molars because group 1 had only one mandibular premolar extraction, it is quite obvious that mandibular molar asymmetry had greater increase in this group than in group 2, which increased even more the significant initial intergroup difference in molar asymmetry, at the posttreatment stage (Tables 4 and 5).

Group 1 presented a significantly smaller facial convexity at the posttreatment stage, probably because of the non-significanly greater upper lip retrusion, with treatment, than group 2 [21, 2932].

The two treatment protocols for class II subdivision malocclusions produced significantly different changes in certain dentoalveolar variables. This is reasonable because each of these protocols are indicated for different types of class II subdivision malocclusions. For type 1, three premolar extractions are indicated [1, 69, 1113]. This is the case when maxillary incisor protrusion or crowding is accentuated and there is also some mandibular crowding or incisor protrusion [7, 9, 11, 12, 33]. Therefore, this protocol will solve these problems [8, 13, 24]. For type 2, there is usually less maxillary incisor protrusion and there is no mandibular crowding, with the incisors labiolingually well positioned. Therefore, the treatment changes will be favorable according to each malocclusion need.

Conclusions

The null hypothesis was rejected because the treatment changes had the following differences:
  1. 1.

    There was greater maxillomandibular sagittal discrepancy reduction in group 1;

     
  2. 2.

    There was greater maxillary first molar extrusion in group 1;

     
  3. 3.

    Maxillary molars asymmetry increased in group 2 and decreased in group 1.

     
  4. 4.

    There was greater mandibular incisor labial inclination and protrusion in group 2, and mandibular incisor lingual inclination and retrusion in group 1;

     
  5. 5.

    There was greater increase of mandibular molar asymmetry in group 1.

     

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP (Process Number 09/15135-3) for their financial support.

Authors’ contributions

GJ contributed in the study conception, research supervision, and scientific and English revision. EBL contributed to the data collection, statistical analyses, and project development. RF and AADC contributed to data checking and manuscript drafting. DG contributed to scientific and English revision. MAL contributed to scientific revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics in Research Committee of Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Brazil.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from the patients for publication of this research and accompanying images.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo
(2)
Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal University of Goiás

References

  1. Wertz RA. Diagnosis and treatment planning of unilateral class II malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 1975;45:85–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alavi DG, BeGole EA, Schneider BJ. Facial and dental arch asymmetries in class II subdivision malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1988;93:38–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Rose JM, Sadowsky C, BeGole EA, Moles R. Mandibular skeletal and dental asymmetry in class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1994;105:489–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Janson GR, Metaxas A, Woodside DG, de Freitas MR, Pinzan A. Three-dimensional evaluation of skeletal and dental asymmetries in class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2001;119:406–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Janson G, de Lima KJ, Woodside DG, Metaxas A, de Freitas MR, Henriques JF. Class II subdivision malocclusion types and evaluation of their asymmetries. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131:57–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Rebellato J. Asymmetric extractions used in the treatment of patients with asymmetries. Semin Orthod. 1998;4:180–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Janson G, Dainesi EA, Henriques JF, de Freitas MR, de Lima KJ. Class II subdivision treatment success rate with symmetric and asymmetric extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;124:257–64. quiz 339View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Turpin DL. Correcting the class II subdivision malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;128:555–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Janson G, Carvalho PE, Cancado RH, de Freitas MR, Henriques JF. Cephalometric evaluation of symmetric and asymmetric extraction treatment for patients with class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132:28–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Janson G, Araki J, Estelita S, Camardella LT. Stability of class II subdivision malocclusion treatment with 3 and 4 premolar extractions. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassidy SE, Jackson SR, Turpin DL, Ramsay DS, Spiekerman C, Huang GJ. Classification and treatment of class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014;145:443–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Janson G, Baldo T, Garib D, Barros SE, Silva Poletto R, Bittencourt Dos Santos P. Efficiency of class II subdivision malocclusion treatment with 3 and 4 premolar extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;150:499–503.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Janson G, Woodside DG, Metaxas A, Henriques JF, Freitas MR. Orthodontic treatment of subdivision cases. World J Orthod. 2003;4:36–46.Google Scholar
  14. Dahiya G, Masoud AI, Viana G, Obrez A, Kusnoto B, Evans CA. Effects of unilateral premolar extraction treatment on the dental arch forms of class II subdivision malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;152:232–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferro F, Monsurro A, Perillo L. Sagittal and vertical changes after treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion according to the Cetlin method. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;118:150–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod. 1975;68:554–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bernabé E, Flores-Mir C. Estimating arch length discrepancy through Little’s Irregularity Index for epidemiological use. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:269–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. New York: Interscience Publications; 1940.Google Scholar
  19. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983;83:382–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Minich CM, Araujo EA, Behrents RG, Buschang PH, Tanaka OM, Kim KB. Evaluation of skeletal and dental asymmetries in Angle class II subdivision malocclusions with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144:57–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Scott Conley R, Jernigan C. Soft tissue changes after upper premolar extraction in class II camouflage therapy. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:59–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sharma JN. Skeletal and soft tissue point A and B changes following orthodontic treatment of Nepalese class I bimaxillary protrusive patients. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:91–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Janson G, Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Niederberger A. Changes in apical base sagittal relationship in class II malocclusion treatment with and without premolar extractions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod. 2017;87:338–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Burstone CJ. Diagnosis and treatment planning of patients with asymmetries. Semin Orthod. 1998;4:153–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanders DA, Rigali PH, Neace WP, Uribe F, Nanda R. Skeletal and dental asymmetries in class II subdivision malocclusions using cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;138:542.e1–20.Google Scholar
  26. Janson G, Branco NC, Morais JF, Freitas MR. Smile attractiveness in patients with class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions treated with different tooth extraction protocols. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36:1–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Bernstein RL, Preston CB, Lampasso J. Leveling the curve of Spee with a continuous archwire technique: a long term cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131:363–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Millett DT, Cunningham SJ, O’Brien KD, Benson PE, de Oliveira CM. Treatment and stability of class II division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;142:159–69. e9View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR, Zaher AR. Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;107:28–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Talass MF, Talass L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1987;91:385–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Verma SL, Sharma VP, Singh GP, Sachan K. Comparative assessment of soft-tissue changes in class II division 1 patients following extraction and non-extraction treatment. Dent Res J. 2013;10:764–71.Google Scholar
  32. Maetevorakul S, Viteporn S. Factors influencing soft tissue profile changes following orthodontic treatment in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion. Prog Orthod. 2016;17:13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Guo Y, Han X, Xu H, Ai D, Zeng H, Bai D. Morphological characteristics influencing the orthodontic extraction strategies for Angle’s class II division 1 malocclusions. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:44–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement