Soft-Tissue Changes in Class II Malocclusion Patients Treated With Extractions: A Systematic Review
Soft-Tissue Changes in Class II Malocclusion Patients Treated With Extractions: A Systematic Review
Systematic Review
Correspondence to: Guilherme Janson, Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Alam-
eda Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla 9-75, Bauru-SP 17012-901, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected]
Summary
Background: Concerns about the effects caused by premolar extractions on the soft-tissue profile
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved.
1
For permissions, please email: [email protected]
2 European Journal of Orthodontics, 2015
tooth extractions (9, 11, 24–27), and orthodontic-surgical treatment A computerized search was conducted using the main terms ‘soft-
(28, 29), when there is accentuated skeletal discrepancies. tissue’, ‘profile’, ‘facial’, ‘Class II’, ‘premolar’, and ‘extraction’ in the
Evaluation of facial profile and balance is a continuous learning following electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase,
process for orthodontists (7). However, most studies concerned with Scopus, and Cochrane (Supplementary Table 1).
the effects of orthodontic treatment on facial profile have been based
mostly on assumptions than on actual changes in the relationship Selection criteria
between the incisors and lips (30–32). Some only suggest favourable To identify potential articles, the initial search was performed by title
changes in the long term (33). and abstract (43). The initial inclusion criteria were: studies pub-
There are concerns that premolar extractions might cause greater lished until June 2015; quoting cephalometric soft-tissue changes
lip retrusion and impair the resulting profile more than treatment in samples treated with premolar extractions. The types of study
without extractions (12–14, 27, 34, 35). The speculation is that selected were randomized clinical trial, retrospective or prospective
anterior retraction would result in an undesirable flattened facial cohort studies. Two researchers independently conducted this selec-
appearance. Although many recent studies have refuted this hypoth- tion process and, thereafter, evaluated the articles from the selected
esis (3, 5, 12, 36–40), this issue keeps been studied. However, there abstracts. To avoid any biased results, interexaminer conflicts were
are no consistent data regarding the amount of soft-tissue changes resolved by discussion on each article to reach a consensus regarding
in Class II malocclusion treatment with 2- or 4-premolar extractions which articles fulfilled the final selection criteria.
(13, 34, 41). Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate The exclusion criteria were: studies that did not have a well-defined
the soft-tissue changes after orthodontic treatment with premolar Class II group treated with premolar extractions, did not describe the
extractions in Class II division 1 malocclusion subjects occlusal malocclusion severity, or had inadequate statistical analyses
were not included in this review. Case reports, letters to the editors, or
experts’ opinions were also rejected. Studies with no systematic and ran-
Materials and methods
dom error analyses or a control group were also excluded. The references
Search methods of the selected articles were then hand-searched for additional studies.
The first phase of this systematic review involved development of
a specific protocol and research question based on the Population Data collection and risk of bias analysis
Intervention Control Outcome Study Design (PICOS) format Risk of bias was assessed not only through inclusion but specially
Data High risk of bias Unclear risk of bias Low risk of bias
1. Low risk of bias (studies with all domains at low risk of bias or
Risk of bias
one unclear key domain): reasonable bias that would hardly alter
the results.
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
2. Unclear risk of bias (studies with more than one domain at unclear
risk of bias): reasonable bias that makes the results suspicious
3. High risk of bias (studies with one or more domains at high risk
Statistical
analysis
Unclear
of bias): reasonable bias that strongly commits the reliability of
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
the results.
Validity
method
Results
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
After a database search, 154 articles were retrieved from PubMed,
132 from Web of Science, 91 from Embase, 184 from Scopus, 7 from
Confounding
Cochrane, and 16 from a hand-search (Figure 1, Supplementary
Table 1). After duplicates were removed, the entire search strategy
factors
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
resulted in 262 abstracts, 61.45 per cent of which were published
between 2001 and June 2015. These results demonstrate that stud-
ies about the influence of first premolar extraction on the soft-tissue
Unclear
Unclear
studies, three (29, 51, 52) prospective, and two unclear (53, 54). All
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
the studies had 14–44 patients in the extraction groups. All of them
were growing patients, except in three, where the extraction group
was compared to a surgical group (29) and the other two used mini-
incisor; unclear: overjet; low:
Class II severity (high: ANB/
cusp, full cusp) (27, 34, 46–48, 51), ANB in one article (29), ANB and
overjet in two articles (53, 54), and according to incisor relationship
Table 3. Quality evaluation of articles and sample. TPA, transpalatal arch.
Unclear
Unclear
Unclear
Unclear
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
< 20; unclear: 20–29; low:
N (extraction group; high:
Unclear**
Unclear*
Unclear
Unclear
Unclear
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Table 4. Main changes and severity. MLA, mentolabial angle; NLA, nasolabial angle; TPA, transpalatal arch.
that second mandibular premolar extractions could be more favour- antero-posterior mandibular growth, the same could have happened
able in Class II malocclusion treatment with 4-premolar extractions, to almost all extraction groups, since all had comparable ages.
it has been shown that anchorage loss is similar between extractions Different ethnicities could have played a role in the amount of
of first or second premolars (55). change observed in the extraction groups as well. Different phe-
Several reasons prevented some articles to be included in this notypes are supposed to have different features such as greater
review. When missing data were essential for complete understand- soft-tissue thickness, nose shape, and degree of biprotrusion (57).
ing of the soft-tissue profile changes, the article was not included. Therefore, different populations with unique characteristics may
It was possible to notice the lack of standardization in the literature. respond differently to anterior retraction therapy. However, most of
Many articles were excluded because they did not have homogeneity the studies included in this review did not provide details about their
in malocclusion severity, extraction protocols, or comparison groups. sample ethnicity or did not even mention it. Consequently, it was not
Firstly, the type of treated malocclusion was identified. The more possible to discuss how this difference may have made the soft-tissue
homogeneous is the sample, the more reliable are the results of the changes vary from one study to another.
study. When the malocclusion was not completely specified, or when Several factors may influence treatment changes on the soft-tissue
there was more than one type in the same group, it could not be profile, such as mechanics, anchorage devices used, and phenotypic differ-
concluded whether the described effects were applied to one or to ences. These various factors may have contributed to the wide variation
the other malocclusion. of results observed in the review. Nevertheless, it would be impossible to
match all selected studies regarding all these kind of factors. In this con-
Malocclusion severity text, it is worthwhile to observe the results sparingly, given the relevant
When discussing Class II malocclusion treatment, description of the information for each study, arranged in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3.
antero-posterior molar relationship severity is also essential. It is Several variables were used to evaluate the soft-tissue changes
directly proportional to the amount of anterior retraction needed. in premolar extraction groups. In order to analyse them, the more
The need in a half cusp Class II case is different from a full Class II, frequently used parameters were selected. They were: the NLA, the
the worst-case scenario. In full Class II malocclusions, the treatment distance from the upper and lower lips to Ricketts Aesthetic Plane,
change in soft-tissue profile is more accentuated. When the extrac- to Steiner’s S-line, and the MLA (Table 4).
tion protocol was not clear, it was not even possible to check if the
main question of this review had been contemplated. Nasolabial angle
which four premolars were removed, the amount of retraction of the malocclusion treatment with the pendulum appliance or two maxillary
upper and lower lips had more similarity. At inter-groups compari- premolar extractions and edgewise appliances [corrected]. European Jour-
son, both lips are retracted, with less retraction of the lower lip in the nal of Orthodontics, 31, 333–340.
11. Janson, G., Leon-Salazar, V., Leon-Salazar, R., Janson, M. and de Freitas,
2-premolar extraction protocol (Table 4).
M.R. (2009) Long-term stability of Class II malocclusion treated with 2-
and 4-premolar extraction protocols. American Journal of Orthodontics
and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 136, 154.e1–e10; discussion 154.
Conclusions
12. Lim, H.J., Ko, K.T. and Hwang, H.S. (2008) Esthetic impact of premolar
According to studies with high scientific evidence, when Class II extraction and nonextraction treatments on Korean borderline patients.
malocclusions are treated with 2-premolar extractions and traditional American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 133,
anchorage, the NLA may increase from 2.4 to 5.40 degrees. If mini- 524–531.
implants are used, it can increase up to 11.55 degrees and when treated 13. Kachiwala, V.A., Kalha, A.S. and Machado, G. (2009) Soft tissue changes
with 4-premolar extractions, it increases from 1 to 6.84 degrees. associated with first premolar extractions in adult females. Australian
Orthodontic Journal, 25, 24–29.
When extractions are performed, both lips are retracted, with
14. Erdinc, A.E., Nanda, R.S. and Dandajena, T.C. (2007) Profile changes of
less retraction of the lower lip in the 2-premolar extraction protocol.
patients treated with and without premolar extractions. American Journal
Therefore, these extraction protocols should be indicated when there
of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 132, 324–331.
is the respective excessive lip protrusions and the mentioned changes 15. Angelle, P.L. (1973) A cephalometric study of the soft tissue changes dur-
are primarily required to improve facial aesthetics. ing and after orthodontic treatment. Transactions of the European Ortho-
dontic Society, pp. 267–280.
16. Wallis, C., McNamara, C., Cunningham, S.J., Sherriff, M., Sandy, J.R. and
Supplementary material Ireland, A.J. (2014) How good are we at estimating crowding and how
Supplementary material is available at European Journal of does it affect our treatment decisions? European Journal of Orthodontics,
36, 465–470.
Orthodontics online.
17. López-Areal, L., Paredes, V. and Gandía, J.L. (2011) Long-term analysis
of upper incisor crowding. A longitudinal study orthodontically treated
patients. Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal, 16, e245–e251.
Funding
18. Pancherz, H. (2005) The Herbst appliance: a paradigm change in Class II
São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP (2011/04603-6). treatment. World Journal of Orthodontics, 6(Suppl), 8–10.
29. Kinzinger, G., Frye, L. and Diedrich, P. (2009) Class II treatment in adults: 45. Battagel, J.M. (1996) The use of tensor analysis to investigate facial
comparing camouflage orthodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthog- changes in treated class II division 1 malocclusions. European Journal of
nathic surgery - a cephalometric study to evaluate various therapeutic Orthodontics, 18, 41–54.
effects. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, 70, 63–91. 46. de Almeida-Pedrin, R.R., Henriques, J.F., de Almeida, R.R., de Almeida,
30. Dewel, B.F. (1964) The Case-Dewey-Cryer extraction debate. American M.R. and McNamara, J.A., Jr. (2009) Effects of the pendulum appliance,
Journal of Orthodontics, 50, 862–865. cervical headgear, and 2 premolar extractions followed by fixed appliances
31. Bishara, S.E., Cummins, D.M., Jorgensen, G.J. and Jakobsen, J.R. (1995) in patients with Class II malocclusion. American Journal of Orthodontics
A computer assisted photogrammetric analysis of soft tissue changes after and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 136, 833–842.
orthodontic treatment. Part I: methodology and reliability. American Jour- 47. Zierhut, E.C., Joondeph, D.R., Artun, J. and Little, R.M. (2000) Long-
nal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 107, 633–639. term profile changes associated with successfully treated extraction and
32. Bryk, C. and White, L.W. (2001) The geometry of Class II correction with nonextraction Class II division 1 malocclusions. The Angle Orthodontist,
extractions. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 35, 570–579. 70, 208–219.
33. Malta, L.A., Baccetti, T., Franchi, L., Faltin, K., Jr and McNamara, J.A., Jr. 48. Bishara, S.E., Zaher, A.R., Cummins, D.M. and Jakobsen, J.R. (1994)
(2010) Long-term dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes induced Effects of orthodontic treatment on the growth of individuals with
by bionator therapy. The Angle Orthodontist, 80, 10–17. Class II division 1 malocclusion. The Angle Orthodontist, 64, 221–
34. Weyrich, C. and Lisson, J.A. (2009) The effect of premolar extractions on 230.
incisor position and soft tissue profile in patients with Class II, division 1 49. Finnoy, J.P., Wisth, P.J. and Böe, O.E. (1987) Changes in soft tissue profile
malocclusion. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics, 70, 128–138. during and after orthodontic treatment. European Journal of Orthodon-
35. Germec, D. and Taner, T.U. (2008) Effects of extraction and nonextrac- tics, 9, 68–78.
tion therapy with air-rotor stripping on facial esthetics in postadolescent 50. Looi, L.K. and Mills, J.R. (1986) The effect of two contrasting forms of
borderline patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial orthodontic treatment on the facial profile. American Journal of Ortho-
Orthopedics, 133, 539–549. dontics, 89, 507–517.
36. Drobocky, O.B. and Smith, R.J. (1989) Changes in facial profile during 51. Al-Sibaie, S. and Hajeer, M.Y. (2014) Assessment of changes following
orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. American en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 95, 220–230. retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1
37. Stromboni, Y. (1979) [Facial aesthetics in orthodontic treatment with and malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Ortho-
without extractions]. European Journal of Orthodontics, 1, 201–206. dontics, 36, 275–283.
38. James, R.D. (1998) A comparative study of facial profiles in extraction and 52. Upadhyay, M., Yadav, S., Nagaraj, K., Uribe, F. and Nanda, R. (2012)
nonextraction treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofa- Mini-implants vs fixed functional appliances for treatment of young adult