Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in nonextraction, 2 maxillary premolar extraction, and 4 premolar extraction protocols with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the orthodontic clinical outcomes of 2 maxillary premolar extraction, 4 premolar extraction, and nonextraction treatment protocols. METHODS: The sample for this retrospective study was selected randomly from the archives of postgraduate orthodontic clinics in various cities in Turkey. Posttreatment records including dental casts and panoramic radiographs of 1098 patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 comprised 269 patients treated with 2 maxillary first premolar extraction, group 2 comprised 267 patients treated with 4 premolar extraction, and group 3 comprised 562 patients treated with a nonextraction protocol. Only 1 researcher evaluated all subjects using the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences among the 2 maxillary premolar extraction, 4 premolar extraction, and nonextraction treatment groups for alignment, marginal ridge height, buccolingual inclination, overjet, and interproximal contact measurements. Statistically significant differences were found in occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and root angulation measurements between the 4 premolar extraction and the nonextraction groups. CONCLUSIONS: The nonextraction patients had more teeth in occlusion than did the 4 premolar extraction patients. The nonextraction patients finished with more satisfactory sagittal dental relationships. The 4 premolar extraction group had the least satisfactory sagittal dental relationships. The nonextraction patients finished with better root angulations.

Outcomes of different Class II treatments : Comparisons using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of three different Class II treatment modalities followed by fixed orthodontic therapy, using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System (ABO-MGS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a retrospective study, files of patients treated at postgraduate orthodontic  clinics in different cities in Turkey was randomly selected. From 1684 posttreatment records, 669 patients were divided into three groups: 269 patients treated with extraction of two upper premolars, 198 patients treated with cervical headgear, and 202 patients treated with functional appliances. All the cases were evaluated by one researcher using ABO-MGS. The χ (2), Z test, and multivariate analysis of variance were used for statistical evaluation (p < 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the groups in buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationship, and root angulation. However, there were significant differences in alignment, marginal ridge height, occlusal contact, interproximal contact measurements, and overall MGS average scores. The mean treatment time between the extraction and functional appliance groups was significantly different (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: According to total ABO-MGS scores, headgear treatment had better results than functional appliances. The headgear group had better tooth alignment than the extraction group. Headgear treatment resulted in better occlusal contacts than the functional appliances and had lower average scores for interproximal contact measurements. Functional appliances had the worst average scores for marginal ridge height. Finally, the functional appliance group had the longest treatment times.