COMPARISON BEFORE AND AFTER ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT WITH NON EXTRACTION ON ADULT PATIENTS WITH ANLGE CLASS I MALOCCLUSION

Trang Trần Tiểu, Thẩm Đổng Khắc, Lâm Lê Nguyên

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: Comparison before and after orthodontic treatment with non-extraction on adult patients with Angle class I malocclusion. Subjects and Methods: The sample included 30 pairs of pre and post-treatment cephalometric radiographies and 30 pairs of pre-treatment dental casts of patients treated orthodontic at the high-tech treatment area, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Ho Chi Minh City. Patients selected that had the following characteristics: class I skeletal correlation, class I malocclusion (Angle) and crowding of the mandibular teeth arch ≤ 9mm. AutoCAD 2018 software to measure the variables of teeth, bone and profile. Results: mandibular crowds: -1,08 ± 3,85mm, angle SNA at pre-treatment 81,60 ± 3,42°, increased in post-treatment 81,83 ± 3,68°. Occlusal plane at pre-treatment 7,57 ± 3,68°, increased in post-treatment 8,37 ± 3,31°. Projection distance of points A and B onto the occlusal plane pre-treatment -2,86 ± 2,38mm, increased in post-treatment -3,32 ± 2,02mm statistically significant p<0,05. The upper central incisor decreased inclined, the tooth axis rotates clockwise, angle U1/NA at pre-treatment 30,47 ± 7,69° decreased in post-treatment 26,80  ± 6,15° statistically significant p<0,05. The face convex angle, nasolabial angle, and lip-chin angle did not change significantly. Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment of class I malocclusion with non-extraction in adults has changes in teeth, few in bone and soft tissue profile.

Article Details

References

1. Lữ Minh Lộc, “Đặc điểm hình thái nền sọ trong các sai hình xương hạng I, II, III (nghiên cứu trên phim sọ nghiêng)”. Tạp chí Y học, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, 2012, 16(2).
2. Hồ Thị Thùy Trang (1999), “Những đặc trưng của khuôn mặt hài hòa qua ảnh chụp và phim sọ nghiêng”, Luận văn thạc sĩ y học, TPHCM
3. Steiner C.C, "The use of cephalometric as an aid to planning and assessing orthodontic treatment", Am J Orthod, 1960, 46(10), pp.721-735
4. Konstantonis D, “The impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes Class I”. Angle Orthodontist, 2012, 82 (2), pp.209-217.
5. Adeeba Khanum, Prashantha G.S: Extraction vs Non Extraction Controversy: A Review. JDOR. 2018; 14(1), pp.41-48
6. Drobocky O.B., Smith R.J. (1989), “Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 95(3), pp.220-230
7. Baccetti T, L Franchi (2005), “The Cervical Vertebral Maturation (CVM) Method for the Assessment of OptimalTreatment Timing in Dentofacial Orthopedics. Senimars in Orthodontics. 11(3), pp.119-129
8. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006