Stability of extraction space closure

Longitudinal evaluation of extraction space closure, at final, medium and long-term, and its association with the adopted protocol, in patients treated in the last 40 years, with several initial malocclusions

“…School, University of São Paulo, with dental extractions, during 40 years, independent of the initial malocclusion or extraction treatment protocol, 38 were selected using inclusion and exclusion criteria. 16,39 The maxillary retention protocol of all patients consisted of a removable Hawley plate used continuously, except during meals, for 6 months and only during sleeping for an additional six months. The mandibular retainer consisted of a bonded canine-to-canine lingual wire used during a mean period of 3 years.…”

“…The mandibular retainer consisted of a bonded canine-to-canine lingual wire used during a mean period of 3 years. 38 In order to make the study sample homogenous and to provide trustfully results, the sample was selected following the inclusion criteria: (1) absence of craniofacial anomalies, 40 (2) complete initial diagnoses, (3) tooth extraction only for orthodontic reasons, 6 (4) final, 1 year and 5 year posttreatment dental casts, 16 (5) complete permanent dentition at the pretreatment stage, 16 (6) absence of supernumerary tooth,…”

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Although performed with correct and precise indication, extractions bring two concerns to orthodontic treatment: the need of complete space closure at the end of treatment and the stability of proximal contact after closing. 8,[11][12][13][14][15][16] Incomplete closure results in unesthetic condition in smile and functional problems derived from food impaction, as gingival inflammation and its injury, leading to a localized periodontal damage. 11 Besides, no proximal contact between adjacent teeth could allow their movement, affect occlusion forces 17 retraction.…”

“…11,16,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Even though no isolated determinant factor was appointed as direct cause to hinder space closure during the treatment or to compromise its stability after closing, it is fact that the reopening could occur and it can vary from fractions of one to several millimeters. 11 Thus, once observed, since the early days of Orthodontics, the high prevalence of open spaces at the end of treatment, 14,[28][29][30] , as well as, the tendency of relapse to the initial dental positions, 13,16,24,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] it is essential to evaluate the actual prevalence of space closures at the end of treatment and of relapse when extractions are performed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate and quantify extraction space remaining rate and its behavior at the end of treatment, and at the short-and long-term posttreatment stages, in orthodontic patients treated with extractions.…”

Dentoskeletal and facial features comparison between individuals treated with four first premolar extraction in the 1970s and in the new millennium

“…14,15 The development of orthopedic treatments, 16,17 twophase interventions, 18,19 interproximal reduction, 20,21 and concerns with temporomandibular disorders [22][23][24] also had an influence in the decrease of tooth extraction. Complexity of orthodontic mechanics, 25 prolonged treatment time, 26 space reopening 27 and an increased degree of external root resorption 28 were also previous concerns in extraction cases.…”