Short Communication

Dental Crowding: Criteria for the Decision for Extraction

Farida Ammouche*

MUHC Algiers, Algeria

Submission: June 04, 2018; Published: July 12, 2018

*Corresponding author: Farida Ammouche, MUHC Algiers, Algeria, Email: farida647@hotmail.com

How to cite this article: Farida A. Dental Crowding: Criteria for the Decision for Extraction. JOJ Orthoped Ortho Surg. 2018; 1(5): 555573. DOI: 10.19080/JOJOOS.2018.01.555573

Introduction

Orthodontics treatments can be planned with extraction or not, decision for removing healthy teeth to correct the orthodontic malocclusions must be based on specific diagnostic criteria before indication. Our practice within the hospital Service of DFO of the MUHC of Algiers consolidated by the results of a study on the theme of extractions shows us important rates linked to the type of malocclusions prevail within our orthodontic populations as well as the moment of treatment. Among our objectives we decided to evaluate the level of dental crowding we consider when taking the decision to extract or not permanent teeth.

Materials and Methods

The total population was composed of 664 individuals. Mean age was twelve. Subjects were excluded if they had primary dentition, lost permanent teeth or were more than 16 years old.

Results

The most frequent reason for consultation among the population was the dental crowding. The role of hereditary origin was important but in many cases the jaws have not grown large enough. Another frequent ethology of the dental crowding was the early extraction of the primary teeth (Table 1 & 2).

Extraction frequency among the total population was 52, 6%, the predominant pattern was to extract 4 teeth (66.5% of cases), with first premolars in large majority (80.6%). Our findings show a marked difference in the level of dental crowding between those treated with extraction and those treated without extraction [1].

Discussion

Decision to extract among the population seems to be related to the discrepancy between expected arch length and space offered in class I or in Class II or Class III. These criteria is an argument for extraction, however the dental crowding can be attributed to the early extraction of the temporary teeth, steatogenic dysfunctions and narrow dental arches [2,3]. It is important to prevent such etiologist to avoid or reduce prescribing extraction for orthodontic therapy.

Conclusions

Our study revealed an important percentage of extractions among our patients. More non-extraction treatment is required with: Early age treatment, space maintenance if premature loss of primary teeth, functional appliances and transverse expansion [4,5].

References

1. Ammouche F, Si Ahmed F0 (2015) Assessment of therapeutic extraction rates and criteria in orthodontics. Epidemiological study in the dentofacial orthopedics department of the Mustapha University Hospital, Algiers. J Dentofacial Anom Orthod 18: 314
2. Bernabé E, Flores-Mir C (2006) Dental morphology and crowding. Angle Orthod 76(1): 20-25.
3. Burrow JS (2008) To extract or not to extract: A diagnostic decision, not a marketing decision. Am J Orthod Dento Facial Orthop 133(3): 341-342.
4. Bayram M, Ozer M, Arici S, Alkan A (2007) Nonextraction treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis and vertical skeletal dimensions. Angle Orthod 77(2): 266-272.
5. Farronato G, Giannini L, Galbiati G, Maspero C (2011) Sagittal and vertical effects of rapid maxillary expansion in class I, II, and III occlusions. Angle Orthod 81(2): 298-303.