Korean J Orthod.  2018 May;48(3):172-181. 10.4041/kjod.2018.48.3.172.

Changes in buccal facial depth of female patients after extraction and nonextraction orthodontic treatments: A preliminary study

• Dai F
• Yu J
• Chen G
• Xu T
• Jiang R

• KMID: 2418328
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2018.48.3.172

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
This study was performed to investigate buccal facial depth (BFD) changes after extraction and nonextraction orthodontic treatments in post-adolescent and adult female patients, and to explore possible influencing factors.
METHODS
Twelve and nine female patients were enrolled in the extraction and nonextraction groups, respectively. Changes in BFD in the defined buccal region and six transverse and two coronal measuring planes were measured after registering pretreatment and posttreatment three-dimensional facial scans. Changes in posterior dentoalveolar arch widths were also measured. Treatment duration, changes in body mass index (BMI), and cephalometric variables were compared between the groups.
RESULTS
BFD in the buccal region decreased by approximately 1.45 mm in the extraction group, but no significant change was observed in the nonextraction group. In the extraction group, the decrease in BFD was identical between the two coronal measuring planes, whereas this differed among the six transverse measuring planes. Posterior dentoalveolar arch widths decreased in the extraction group, whereas these increased at the second premolar level in the nonextraction group. The treatment duration of the extraction group was twice that of the nonextraction group. No differences were found in BMI and Frankfort horizontal-mandibular plane angle changes between the groups. BFD changes in the buccal region moderately correlated with treatment duration and dental arch width change.
CONCLUSIONS
BFD decreased in adult female patients undergoing extraction, and this may be influenced by the long treatment duration and constriction of dentoalveolar arch width. However, nonextraction treatment did not significantly alter BFD.

Keyword

Three-dimensional scanner; Soft tissue; Adult treatment; Extraction vs. nonextraction

MeSH Terms

Adult
Bicuspid
Body Mass Index
Constriction
Dental Arch
Female*
Humans

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 A, The three-dimensional structured light scanning system; B, initial registration of facial scans before (blue) and after (red) treatment based on five landmarks; C, markings of the frontal-nasal-zygomatic region, the registered images, and shell-to-shell deviation maps showing good registration in the frontal-nasal-zygomatic region, with the error mostly within ± 0.5 mm (black).

• 

  Figure 2 A, Sagittal, transverse, and coronal reference planes; B, two coronal measuring planes; C, four landmarks (Sn, Ls, Li, and B′) located on the midsagittal profile and two landmarks (Sn-Ls and Ls-Li) defined as midpoints of vectors; D, six transverse measuring planes; E, anterior border of the buccal region: the planes parallel and 10 mm posterior to plane_AO and plane_O; F and G, frontal and lateral views of the buccal region; H, shell-to-shell deviation of the buccal region between the pretreatment and posttreatment scans; I, black dot showing the intersection of the two planes on the right side of the facial scan (plane_Co2 and plane_Ls, for example); J, distance between the bilateral intersection points defined as facial width; K, generated curves on the facial scan sliced by the measuring plane (plane_Sn-Ls shown as an example); L, generated transverse curves on pretreatment and posttreatment facial scans (right side); and M, curve-to-curve deviation of the generated curves.

• 

  Figure 3 A, Registration of maxillary dental casts based on the palatal stable region (black arrow); B, mutual transverse reference plane; C, measurement of dental and alveolar arch widths at two levels: the first molar (M1) and the second premolar (PM2) on the pretreatment cast.

Reference

1. Luppanapornlarp S, Johnston LE Jr. The effects of premolar-extraction: a long-term comparison of outcomes in “clear-cut” extraction and nonextraction Class II patients. Angle Orthod. 1993; 63:257–272.

2. Scott SH, Johnston LE Jr. The perceived impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on matched samples of African American patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116:352–360.

3. Bowman SJ, Johnston LE Jr. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on Caucasian patients. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70:3–10.

4. Basciftci FA, Usumez S. Effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on class I and class II subjects. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73:36–42.

5. Wholley CJ, Woods MG. The effects of commonly prescribed premolar extraction sequences on the curvature of the upper and lower lips. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73:386–395.

6. Bishara SE, Jorgensen GJ, Jakobsen JR. Changes in facial dimensions assessed from lateral and frontal photographs. Part I--Methodology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108:389–393.

7. Moss JP, Ismail SF, Hennessy RJ. Three-dimensional assessment of treatment outcomes on the face. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2003; 6:Suppl 1. 126–131.

8. Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I. J Orthod. 2004; 31:62–70.

9. Kau CH, Richmond S, Incrapera A, English J, Xia JJ. Three-dimensional surface acquisition systems for the study of facial morphology and their application to maxillofacial surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2007; 3:97–110.

10. Kau CH, Richmond S. Three-dimensional analysis of facial morphology surface changes in untreated children from 12 to 14 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134:751–760.

11. Alqattan M, Djordjevic J, Zhurov AI, Richmond S. Comparison between landmark and surface-based three-dimensional analyses of facial asymmetry in adults. Eur J Orthod. 2015; 37:1–12.

12. Nkenke E, Lehner B, Kramer M, Haeusler G, Benz S, Schuster M, et al. Determination of facial symmetry in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients from threedimensional data: technical report and assessment of measurement errors. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006; 43:129–137.

13. Chen G, Chen S, Zhang XY, Jiang RP, Liu Y, Shi FH, et al. Stable region for maxillary dental cast superimposition in adults, studied with the aid of stable miniscrews. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011; 14:70–79.

14. Coetzee V, Chen J, Perrett DI, Stephen ID. Deciphering faces: quantifiable visual cues to weight. Perception. 2010; 39:51–61.

15. Miller L, Morris DO, Berry E. Visualizing threedimensional facial soft tissue changes following orthognathic surgery. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29:14–20.

16. Alves PV, Zhao L, Patel PK, Bolognese AM. Threedimensional facial surface analysis of patients with skeletal malocclusion. J Craniofac Surg. 2009; 20:290–296.

17. Baik HS, Kim SY. Facial soft-tissue changes in skeletal Class III orthognathic surgery patients analyzed with 3-dimensional laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138:167–178.

18. Ismail SF, Moss JP, Hennessy R. Three-dimensional assessment of the effects of extraction and nonextraction orthodontic treatment on the face. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121:244–256.

19. Winocur E, Davidov I, Gazit E, Brosh T, Vardimon AD. Centric slide, bite force and muscle tenderness changes over 6 months following fixed orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77:254–259.

20. Alomari SA, Alhaija ES. Occlusal bite force changes during 6 months of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Aust Orthod J. 2012; 28:197–203.

21. Kiliaridis S, Mills CM, Antonarakis GS. Masseter muscle thickness as a predictive variable in treatment outcome of the twin-block appliance and masseteric thickness changes during treatment. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2010; 13:203–213.

22. Coleman SR, Grover R. The anatomy of the aging face: volume loss and changes in 3-dimensional topography. Aesthet Surg J. 2006; 26:S4–S9.

23. Sarver D, Jacobson RS. The aesthetic dentofacial analysis. Clin Plast Surg. 2007; 34:369–394.

24. Richard MJ, Morris C, Deen BF, Gray L, Woodward JA. Analysis of the anatomic changes of the aging facial skeleton using computer-assisted tomography. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 25:382–386.

25. Waldman BH. Change in lip contour with maxillary incisor retraction. Angle Orthod. 1982; 52:129–134.

26. Jamilian A, Gholami D, Toliat M, Safaeian S. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Orthod Waves. 2008; 67:157–161.

27. Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Zaher AR. Treatment and posttreatment changes in patients with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion after extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111:18–27.

28. Kim E, Gianelly AA. Extraction vs nonextraction: arch widths and smile esthetics. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73:354–358.