Influence of root parallelism on the stability of extraction-site closures

Introduction: In premolar extraction cases, root parallelism is recommended to preserve the stability of space closures. The influence of the degree of root parallelism on relapse of tooth extraction spaces has been a controversial topic in the literature. The aim of this study was to compare the angle between the long axes of the canine and the second premolarin patients with and without stability of extraction-space closures. Methods: A sample of 56 patients, treated with 4 premolar extractions, was divided into 2 groups: group 1, consisting of 25 patients with reopening of extraction spaces; and group 2, consisting of 31 patients without reopening of extraction spaces. Panoramic radiographs of each patient were analyzed at the posttreatment and 1-year posttreatment stages. The data were statistically analyzed by using chi-square tests, t tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: The results showed that the groups did not differ regarding the angle between the canine and the second premolar, and there was no correlation between angular changes and reopening of extraction spaces, showing that dental angular changes are not determining factors for relapse, and other factors should be investigated. Conclusions: The final angle and the posttreatment changes observed in the angle between the long axes of the canine and the second premolar showed no influence on the relapse of extraction spaces. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e505-e510)

Occlusal outcomes and efficiency of 1-and 2-phase protocols in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal outcomes and the efficiency of 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols in Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Treatment efficiency was defined as a change in the occlusal characteristics in a shorter treatment time. Methods: Class II Division 1 subjects ( n = 139) were divided into 2 groups according to the treatment protocol for Class II correction. Group 1 comprised 78 patients treated with a 1-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 12.51 and 14.68 years. Group 2 comprised 61 patients treated with a 2-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 11.21 and 14.70 years. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the pretreatment stage to evaluate morphological differences in the groups. The initial and final study models of the patients were evaluated by using the peer assessment rating index. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between the 2 groups for categorical variables. Variables regarding occlusal results were compared by using independent t tests. A linear regression analysis was completed, with total treatment time as the dependent variable, to identify clinical factors that predict treatment length for patients with Class II malocclusions. Results: Similar occlusal outcomes were obtained between the 1-phase and the 2-phase treatment protocols, but the duration of treatment was significantly shorter in the 1-phase treatment protocol group. Conclusions: Treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions is more efficient with the 1-phase than the 2-phase treatment protocol.