Treatment outcome of class II malocclusion therapy including extraction of maxillary first molars: a cephalometric comparison between normodivergent and hyperdivergent facial types.

Background: The dentoalveolar component of a Class II division 1 malocclusion can be orthodontically treated either with extractions or by distalization of the molars. This study aimed to compare skeletal, dentoalveolar and profile changes in normodivergent and hyperdivergent Class II Division I growing patients orthodontically treated with fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extraction.

Methods: Sixty-four patients treated orthodontically with full fixed appliances including maxillary first molar extractions were retrospectively analyzed.

Skeletal, Dental and Soft Tissue Cephalometric Changes after Orthodontic Treatment of Dental Class II Malocclusion with Maxillary First Molar or First Premolar Extractions.

The aim of the present retrospective study was evaluating skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes of two groups of Class II patients orthodontically treated with extractions of upper first premolars (U4 group) and upper first molars (U6 group). In total, 21 patient records (9M and 12F; mean age 12.5 ± 1.

Class II Division 1 malocclusion treatment with extraction of maxillary first molars: Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index.

Objective: To investigate occlusal result and post-treatment changes after orthodontic extraction of maxillary first permanent molars in patients with a Class II division 1 malocclusion.

Setting And Sample: Retrospective longitudinal study in a private practice, with outcome evaluation by an independent academic hospital. Ninety-six patients (53 males, 43 females) consecutively treated by one orthodontist with maxillary first permanent molar extraction were studied, divided into three facial types, based on pre-treatment cephalometric values: hypodivergent (n = 18), normodivergent (n = 21) and hyperdivergent (n = 57).

Does fixed retention prevent overeruption of unopposed mandibular second molars in maxillary first molar extraction cases?

Background: The objective of this study was to investigate whether multistranded fixed retainers prevented overeruption of unopposed mandibular second molars in maxillary first molar extraction cases.

Methods: The panoramic radiographs of 65 Class II Division 1 Caucasian Whites (28 females, 37 males) consecutively treated with bilateral maxillary first molar extraction and the Begg technique, and with records taken after treatment (T1) and in retention (T2), were withdrawn from private practice records. After appliance removal, mandibular second molars were retained with sectional wires till at least T2 in case of lack of occlusal contact with the antagonist.

Influence of unilateral maxillary first molar extraction treatment on second and third molar inclination in Class II subdivision patients.

Objective: To assess the maxillary second molar (M2) and third molar (M3) inclination following orthodontic treatment of Class II subdivision malocclusion with unilateral maxillary first molar (M1) extraction.

Materials And Methods: Panoramic radiographs of 21 Class II subdivision adolescents (eight boys, 13 girls; mean age, 12.8 years; standard deviation, 1.

Long-term evaluation of Class II subdivision treatment with unilateral maxillary first molar extraction.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term effects of asymmetrical maxillary first molar (M1) extraction in Class II subdivision treatment.

Materials And Methods: Records of 20 Class II subdivision whites (7 boys, 13 girls; mean age, 13.0 years; SD, 1.

Maxillary sinus floor extension and posterior tooth inclination in adolescent patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion treated with maxillary first molar extractions.

Introduction: Our objective was to investigate potential associations between maxillary sinus floor extension and inclination of maxillary second premolars and second molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion whose orthodontic treatment included maxillary first molar extractions.

Methods: The records of 37 patients (18 boys, 19 girls; mean age, 13.2 years; SD, 1.

Class II treatment by extraction of maxillary first molars or Herbst appliance: dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects in comparison.

Aim: To compare dentoskeletal and soft tissue treatment effects of two alternative Class II division 1 treatment modalities (maxillary first permanent molar extraction versus Herbst appliance).

Methods: One-hundred-fifty-four Class II division 1 patients that had either been treated with extractions of the upper first molars and a lightwire multibracket (MB) appliance (n = 79; 38 girls, 41 boys) or non-extraction by means of a Herbst-MB appliance (n = 75; 35 girls, 40 boys). The groups were matched on age and sex.

Extraction of maxillary first molars improves second and third molar inclinations in Class II Division 1 malocclusion.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess the changes in inclination of the maxillary second (M2) and third (M3) molars after orthodontic treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with extraction of maxillary first molars.

Methods: Two groups of subjects were studied. The experimental group consisted of 37 subjects, 18 boys and 19 girls (mean age, 13.

Overjet correction and space closure mechanisms for Class II treatment by extracting the maxillary first molars.

Objective: To analyze the mechanism of overjet correction and space closure when treating Class II Division 1 patients by extracting the maxillary first molars.

Patients And Methods: A total of 100 prospective, consecutively treated Class II Division 1 patients (45 female, 55 male; 10.5-17.

A treatment method for Class II Division 1 patients with extraction of permanent maxillary first molars.

Throughout the years, various treatment modalities have been presented for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions. The goal of this paper is to present a treatment approach that involves the extraction of the maxillary first molars followed by use of fixed appliances with low-friction brackets. This treatment approach has proven to be an efficient treatment modality for Class II Division 1 malocclusions, especially with noncompliant patients.

Extraction of maxillary first permanent molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion.

Introduction: Our objectives were to assess treatment outcomes in Class II Division 1 patients who were treated orthodontically with extraction of the maxillary first permanent molars and to describe the changes in their facial profiles.

Methods: This was a prospective, longitudinal, 1-group outcome analysis in a private practice, with outcome evaluation by independent observers at an academic clinic. One hundred consecutively treated patients were enrolled prospectively and treated by 1 orthodontist.