Orthodontic treatment for malocclusion correction may involve extraction or non-extraction of specified teeth for esthetic and functional harmony. Antero-posterior and transverse arch dimensional changes following orthodontic treatment has been evaluated using many methods. The present study evaluated the arch dimensional changes after orthodontic treatment in extraction and non-extraction cases using AUTO CAD system with medial and lateral edges of 3 rd primary rugae and mesio-incisal tip of the most prominent incisor as the reference points. A total of 100 (Group 1- Upper bicuspid extraction=50; Group 2- Non-extraction=50) orthodontically treated cases were selected in the age range of 19-25 years (Males=50; Females=50). Their pre and post treatment study models were collected and photographed. The photographic data was then digitized and arch dimensional changes were measured using AUTO CAD. The data obtained were subjected to statistical analyses using Paired t-test, Unpaired t-test, Levene's test and Gain score measurement test. There were significant antero-posterior tooth movements in extraction cases when compared to non extraction cases, a significant reduction in the intermolar width after premolar extractions but minimal changes in the intercanine width showing significance at 5% level. In non-extraction cases, there was no significant arch dimensional changes after orthodontic treatment in both intermolar and intercanine region. Maximum antero-posterior arch dimensional changes can be seen in orthodontically treated bicuspid extraction cases and non extraction cases show minimal changes in the antero-posterior dimensions even after orthodontic treatment. Significant amount of anchorage loss can be seen in upper bicuspid extraction cases when compared to non extraction cases. Reduction in the intermolar width and contraction of maxillary arch occurred in upper bicuspid extraction cases with minimal changes in the intercanine width. Minimal transverse arch dimensional changes occurred in non-extraction cases after orthodontic treatment.
[1]
A. Gianelly.
Arch width after extraction and nonextraction treatment.
,
2003,
American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.
[2]
M. Woods,et al.
An occlusal and cephalometric analysis of maxillary first and second premolar extraction effects.
,
2001,
The Angle orthodontist.
[3]
M. Woods,et al.
An occlusal and cephalometric analysis of lower first and second premolar extraction effects.
,
2000,
American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.
[4]
M A Almeida,et al.
Stability of the palatal rugae as landmarks for analysis of dental casts in extraction and nonextraction cases.
,
2010,
The Angle orthodontist.
[5]
N. Pitts,et al.
Determination of tooth dimensions from study casts using an image analysis system.
,
1983,
Journal of the International Association of Dentistry for Children.
[6]
Thomas Cj,et al.
The palatal ruga pattern: a new classification.
,
1983
.
[7]
C. J. Thomas,et al.
The palatal ruga pattern: a new classification.
,
1983,
The Journal of the Dental Association of South Africa = Die Tydskrif van die Tandheelkundige Vereniging van Suid-Afrika.
[8]
G. Kendrick,et al.
The effects of tooth movement on the palatine rugae.
,
1967,
The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[9]
B S Savara,et al.
Applications of photogrammetry for quantitative study of tooth and face morphology.
,
1965,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology.