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 ± 1.2 years) were selected for the U4 group, and 38 patient records (17M and 21F; mean age 13.2 ± 1.3 years) were recruited for the U6 group. Twenty cephalometric variables were analysed on standardised lateral cephalograms at baseline (T0) and at the end of orthodontic treatment (T1). Means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for both groups and increments were calculated. After revealing the normal distribution of data with the Shapiro–Wilk test, Student’s t-test was used to compare variables at T0 between groups. A paired t-test was used to analyse changes between time points within each group, and Student’s t-test to compare differences between groups at T1. Both groups showed a significant increase in the distance among upper second molars and the vertical pterygoid line (PTV-maxillary second molar centroid U6 group: 6.66 ± 5.00 mm; U4 group: 3.66 ± 2.20 mm). Moreover, the distance of upper incisors to the palatal plane significantly increased (PP-maxillary incisor tip U6 group: 1.09 ± 1.52 mm; U4 group: 0.20 ± 2.00 mm; p = 0.061). Significant changes were found for overjet (U6 group: −4.86 ± 1.62 mm; U4 group: −3.27 ± 1.90 mm; p = 0.001). The distance between upper lip and esthetic plane showed a significantly reduction in both groups (ULip-E Plane U6 group: −2.98 ± 1.65 mm; U4 group: −1.93 ± 1.57 mm). No statistically significant changes were found in sagittal or vertical skeletal values. The significantly larger reduction of upper lip protrusion and overjet in the U6 group compared to the U4 group suggests preferring molar extraction treatment for severe Class II with protrusive soft tissues’ profile and increased overjet. Since no differences on vertical values were found, an increased SN^GoGn angle should not be considered a discriminating factor for choosing molar extraction treatment.

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).Methods: Occlusal outcome was scored on dental casts at T1 (pre‐treatment), T2 (post‐treatment) and T3 (mean follow‐up 2.5 ± 0.9 years) using the weighted Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index. The paired sample t test and one‐way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test were used for statistical analysis.Results: PAR was reduced by 95.7% and 89.9% at T2 and T3, respectively, compared with the start of treatment. The largest post‐treatment changes were found for overjet and buccal occlusion. Linear regression analysis did not reveal a clear effect (R‐Square 0.074) of age, sex, PAR score at T1, incremental PAR score T2‐T1, overjet and overbite at T1, and facial type on the changes after treatment (incremental PAR score T3‐T2).Conclusions: The occlusal outcome achieved after Class II division 1 treatment with maxillary first permanent molar extractions was maintained to a large extent over a mean post‐treatment follow‐up of 2.5 years. Limited changes after treatment were found, for which no risk factors could be discerned.

Background/objectives: This retrospective longitudinal outcome study comparing orthodontic extraction modalities, including extraction of maxillary first or second molars, aimed to compare the three-dimensional tooth movement of maxillary canines (C), premolars (P1, P2), and molars (M1, M2) in Class II division 1 malocclusion treatment with fixed appliances. Methods: A sample of 98 patients (mean age 13.20 ± 1.46 years) was selected for the M1 group, and 64 patients (mean age 13.20 ± 1.36 years) were chosen for the M2 group. Tooth movement was analyzed three-dimensionally on pre-treatment (T0) and post-treatment (T1) digital dental casts. Regression analyses compared the tooth movements (in mm) between the M1 and M2 groups. Results: The mean treatment duration for the M1 group was 2.51 ± 0.55 year, while, for the M2 group, it was 1.53 ± 0.37 year. The data showed limited distal movements of the C, P1, and P2 of approximately 2 mm in the M1 group and 1 mm in the M2 group during orthodontic treatment, but the M1 group exhibited significantly more distal movements than the M2 group (mean difference 1.11 to 1.24 mm). Vertical movements of the C, P1, and P2 in both groups were also minor (0.16 to 1.26 mm). The differences between groups did not exceed 0.2 mm and were not significant. Both treatment modalities resulted in a significant degree of anchorage loss with a distinct mesialization (8.40 ± 1.66 mm) of M2 in the M1 group and limited distalization (0.83 ± 0.98 mm) of M1 in the M2 group. Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of thorough case evaluation when choosing between extraction modalities in Class II treatment. If a large distal movement of canines and premolars is required, additional anchorage mechanics should be considered.

In this case report, we present the treatment of an adult patient who had experienced dental trauma resulting in the loss of one tooth and damage to two others. The patient was referred to our clinic 4 years after the accident, where a comprehensive examination revealed external root resorption and loss of supporting tissue. To address the patient’s concerns, we developed an interdisciplinary treatment plan, which included orthodontic treatment to level the curve of Spee, reduce the deep bite, and extrude the affected teeth. After that, we extracted the damaged Teeth 2.1 and 2.2 due to their poor prognosis and replaced them with autotransplantation of Teeth 1.4 and 3.1. Before the procedure, both teeth underwent endodontic treatment, and 6 weeks later, they were built up to aesthetically and functionally replace the lost teeth. Additionally, postautotransplantation orthodontic treatment was conducted to close the donor site space and bring the autotransplanted teeth to an ideal position. The interdisciplinary approach and successful treatment of this case suggest that autotransplantation can be a valid option for restoring compromised teeth, especially in adult patients who require orthodontic treatment. In conclusion, autotransplantation offers multiple benefits, including preserving the natural dentition, avoiding the use of dental implants or prostheses, and achieving excellent aesthetic and functional results. Furthermore, this case underscores the importance of individualized treatment planning and collaboration among dental specialists to achieve optimal outcomes for patients.

Objective: To investigate the cephalometric outcome and post-treatment changes following the orthodontic treatment involving the extraction of maxillary first molars in patients presenting with a Class II division 1 malocclusion. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted involving 83 patients treated by fixed appliances and the extraction of 16 and 26. The mean age at commencement was 13.2 ± 1.5 years. Lateral cephalograms were available pre-treatment (T1), immediately post-treatment (T2), and at 2.6 years post-treatment (T3). The sample was divided into hypodivergent ( n = 18), normodivergent ( n = 17), and hyperdivergent ( n = 48) facial types. Mean increments, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for T2–T1 and T3–T2. Increments were tested using paired-samples t -tests, and variables between groups by applying ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. Linear regression was used to examine the effect of facial type, age, and gender. Results: Significant changes occurred during treatment for most cephalometric variables. Post-treatment, the growth pattern showed a tendency to return to the original form. Facial type had only a minor influence on cephalometric increments during and after treatment. Conclusions: Post-treatment skeletal, soft tissue, and dentoalveolar changes were limited. Facial type had only a minor influence during and after treatment and care must be taken to control lower incisor inclination.