Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Apr 10;16(4):e57982.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.57982. eCollection 2024 Apr.

A Comparative Analysis of Arch Widths in Class I and Class II Malocclusion: Extraction vs. Non-extraction Treatment

Anusha Hegde  1 , Lohith D  2 , Shailaja A M  3 , Ajith Geevee  4 , Rohith M Srikant  5   6   7
Affiliations

A Comparative Analysis of Arch Widths in Class I and Class II Malocclusion: Extraction vs. Non-extraction Treatment

Anusha Hegde et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to assess and compare dental arch widths in the anterior and posterior regions among patients undergoing extraction and non-extraction treatments for Class I and Class II malocclusions.

Materials and methodology: A total of 40 patients were selected, with 10 in each of the categorized groups based on malocclusion type and treatment status. Dental arch widths were meticulously measured using a digital Vernier caliper at the canine and molar regions to ensure precise data collection.

Results: Statistically significant differences were noted when comparing mean inter-canine and molar widths between pre- and post-treatment periods among extraction cases in Class I malocclusion (p < 0.001). Conversely, there were no significant changes observed in arch widths among non-extraction cases in Class I malocclusion. Similarly, significant changes were observed in both extraction and non-extraction cases of Class II malocclusion when comparing mean inter-canine and molar widths between pre- and post-treatment periods (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: After treatment, both Class I and Class II extraction cases showed an increase in inter-canine arch width, while intermolar arch width remained unchanged, suggesting that the treatment did not significantly alter the buccal corridor. Additionally, there were no notable changes in inter-canine arch widths between pre- and post-treatment in Class I non-extraction cases. However, the Class II non-extraction group exhibited increased upper and lower inter-canine arch widths after treatment.

Keywords: arch width; class 1 malocclusion; class 2 malocclusion; digital vernier caliper; extraction treatment; non-extraction treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study methodology represented in the form of a flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Class I non-extraction study model.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Class I extraction study model.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Class II non-extraction study model.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Class II extraction study model.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Mean inter-canine and intermolar widths between pre- and post-treatment periods among extraction cases in Class I malocclusion.
UC: upper canine; LC: lower canine; UM: upper molar; LM: lower molar
Figure 7
Figure 7. Mean inter-canine and intermolar widths between pre- and post-treatment periods among non-extraction cases in Class I malocclusion.
UC: upper canine; LC: lower canine; UM: upper molar; LM: lower molar
Figure 8
Figure 8. Mean inter-canine and intermolar widths between pre and post-treatment periods among extraction cases in Class II malocclusion.
UC: upper canine; LC: lower canine; UM: upper molar; LM: lower molar
Figure 9
Figure 9. Mean inter-canine and intermolar widths between pre and post-treatment periods among non-extraction cases in Class II malocclusion.
UC: upper canine; LC: lower canine; UM: upper molar; LM: lower molar
Figure 10
Figure 10. Flowchart summarizing the results of this clinical study.
Figure 11
Figure 11. Flowchart summarizing the results of this clinical study.
Continued from Figure 10
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dental arch dimensions in the mixed dentition: a study of Brazilian children from 9 to 12 years of age. Louly F, Nouer PR, Janson G, Pinzan A. https://europepmc.org/article/MED/21552719. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011;19:169–174. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Archform in orthodontics: a review. Tiwari A, Garg A, Virang B, Sahu S, Shah N, Verma N. J App Med Dent Sci. 2018;4:118–127.
    1. Arch-width changes in extraction vs nonextraction treatments in matched Class I borderline malocclusions. Herzog C, Konstantonis D, Konstantoni N, Eliades T. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151:735–743. - PubMed
    1. Smile estheties after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Johnson DK, Smith RJ. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S088954069570079X Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;108:162–167. - PubMed
    1. Nonextraction orthodontic therapy: posttreatment dental and skeletal stability. Glenn G, Sinclair PM, Alexander RG. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3477951/ Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;92:321–328. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources