The extraction rate in orthodontics varies throughout the years. While the extraction decision is easily made or excluded in clear-cut cases, it still remains controversial what makes an orthodontist decide to extract in borderline cases. The aim of this retrospective study was to identify the percentage of extraction cases in a large group of Class I malocclusions and to clarify which variables contributed most to the extraction decision. The sample consisted of 542 randomly selected records of Class I patients treated in a university graduate program and in five private orthodontic offices. Of these patients, 331 were female and 211 male. The mean age was 14.55 (standard deviation (SD) 5.36) for the non-extraction group and 14.52 (SD 4.86) for the extraction group. The extensive series of 32 linear and angular measurements derived from the cephalometric analysis and the dental casts, along with the variables of age and gender, fueled a stepwise discriminant analysis. The percentage of the patients treated with four first premolar extractions was 26.8%. The results showed that the variables of lower crowding, lower lip to E-plane, upper crowding, and overjet accounted most for the decision to extract at a very significant level (Sig. 0.000). The discriminant analysis assigned a classification power of 83.9% to the predictive model (p < 0.0001). Fisher's linear discriminant functions provided a mathematical model, according to which any case can be classified into the adequate treatment group. In a large contemporary sample of 542 Class I patients, the extraction rate was 26.8%. The most important measurements when the orthodontist decides extractions in Class I cases are lower crowding, lower lip to E-plane, upper crowding, and overjet. In clinical orthodontic practice, the findings facilitate treatment by providing evidence-based treatment predictors for Class I malocclusions.

Objective: To obtain through the use of discriminant analysis a relatively bias-free sample of extraction and nonextraction, Class I, equally susceptible to both treatments' malocclusions and to analyze retrospectively the soft tissue changes between the two different treatment groups. Materials and Methods: The cephalometric, model, and demographic data of 215 patients (females and males) fueled a stepwise discriminant analysis that provided the borderline homogenous subsample (30 extraction and 32 nonextraction cases). The pretreatment and postreatment cephalograms of the borderline sample were then subjected to a thorough soft tissue cephalometric analysis. Results: The results indicated that the three variables that played the most important role in the clinician's treatment decision were indicators of lower crowding, soft tissue convexity, and lower incisor protrusion. Significant differences ( P < .001) regarding upper and lower lip protrusion, upper lip thickness ( P < .05), and the nasiolabial angle ( P < .05) occurred. Conclusion: Extraction treatment of Class I borderline malocclusions led to significant soft tissue changes regarding the upper and lower lip position and thickness as well as the nasiolabial angle, whereas the nonextraction treatment resulted in significant upper lip retraction and lower lip protraction.

To evaluate the hard tissue and facial profile changes in matched extraction and non-extraction Class I patients by the use of geometric morphometrics. From a parent sample of 542 Class I patients, previously subjected to discriminant analysis, a subsample of 68 borderline cases was obtained, 34 treated with extraction and 34 without extraction of 4 first premolars. Geometric morphometric methods (Procrustes superimposition and Principal Component Analysis) were applied on cephalometric tracings to assess the validity of the discriminant analysis in successfully identifying a morphologically homogeneous group and to evaluate inter- and intra-group skeletal and facial profile shape changes. No significant pre-treatment shape difference between the two groups was found, thus validating the discriminant analysis. The non-extraction group showed increase in hard tissue facial height (P < 0.001), with slight lower lip retrusion and upper lip protrusion (P = 0.027). The extraction group showed retraction of the hard tissue and facial profile outline (P < 0.001). Permutation tests for post-treatment inter-group differences resulted in P = 0.054 for the soft tissue outline and P = 0.078 for the hard tissue skeletal component. The evidence indicates that borderline cases treated with four premolar extractions will exhibit lip retrusion compared to non-extraction treatment.

The aims of this study were to identify a sample of borderline Class I extraction and nonextraction patients and to investigate posttreatment changes in arch-width and perimeter measurements. A parent sample of 580 Class I patients was subjected to discriminant analysis, and a borderline subsample of 62 patients, 31 treated with extraction of 4 first premolars and 31 treated without extractions, was obtained. The patients' plaster casts were digitally scanned, and the maxillary and mandibular intercanine and intermolar widths and perimeters were assessed. The extraction group showed increases in maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths (P <0.001) and decreases in mandibular intermolar width and in maxillary and mandibular perimeters (P <0.001). The nonextraction group showed increases in all 4 arch-width measurements (P ≤0.003), whereas the maxillary and mandibular perimeters were maintained. The posttreatment differences between the 2 groups showed significant differences in the maxillary (P <0.001) and mandibular intermolar widths (P <0.001). Also, the comparison of the arch perimeters between the 2 treatment groups showed adjusted differences of -8.51 mm (P <0.001) and -8.44 mm (P <0.001) for the maxillary and mandibular arches, respectively. The intercanine widths showed no changes between the 2 treatment groups. Borderline Class I patients treated with extraction of 4 first premolars had decreased maxillary and mandibular intermolar and perimeter measurements compared with nonextraction patients. The maxillary and mandibular intercanine widths showed no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups.

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of tooth agenesis, microdontia, and tooth malformation among non-syndromic oral cleft patients and their potential association with cleft type and gender. Intraoral records and radiographs of 154 patients (97 males and 57 females) were examined. The variables assessed were tooth agenesis, microdontia, dental malformations, and cleft types. The statistics included chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests as well as logistic regression to assess any mutual effects of gender and cleft type on the dental variables. Tooth agenesis occurred in 50% of the sample and microdontia in 18%. Non-statistically significant odds ratios for the association of gender and cleft type with tooth agenesis were obtained. Tooth agenesis was substantially higher at the unilateral right CL + P and the bilateral CL + P in quadrant 1 and at the unilateral left CL + P and bilateral CL + P in quadrant 2. It was also higher, at the isolated cleft palate (CP) in quadrants 3 and 4. These results were attributed to teeth 22 (31.8%) and 12 (21.6%) in the maxilla and to teeth 35 (6.1%) and 45 (5.4%) in the mandible. In unilateral CL + P patients, the cleft quadrant that presented tooth agenesis was associated with the side of the cleft. Interdisciplinary treatment of the oral cleft patients should take into consideration the high prevalence of tooth agenesis and their association with the different cleft types. The most frequently affected teeth by cleft are by far the upper lateral incisors. Results indicate that tooth agenesis appears to be a genetically controlled anomaly related to the orofacial cleft development through various genetic links and not caused by the cleft disruptive process.