Frequency of Extractions in Various Skeletal Patterns in Orthodontic Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, Multan
Introduction: When the 20th century started Orthodontics was first recognized as a science. The removal or extraction of teeth destroys the ideal esthetics and occlusion, which was the base of orthodontic treatment plans. Edward Hartley Angle and his followers were not supporters of extraction due t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Orthodontic journal of Nepal 2020-12, Vol.10 (3), p.27-30 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction: When the 20th century started Orthodontics was first recognized as a science. The removal or extraction of teeth destroys the ideal esthetics and occlusion, which was the base of orthodontic treatment plans. Edward Hartley Angle and his followers were not supporters of extraction due to this reason. Extreme dental or maxillary protrusion leading to facial deformities could be corrected by dental extraction was supported by Calvin Case who was a strong opponent of the Angle., for mainly analyzing the frequency of use of orthodontic extractions after evaluating the changes in the use of extraction in past years. The frequency of extractions was examined in relation to gender and Angle’s malocclusion classification.
Materials and Method: This is a retrospective observational study. It was conducted in Orthodontics Department of Nishtar Institute of Dentistry, from 2015 to 2020. In this study records from 1032 patients who reported to orthodontic department in Nishtar institute of dentistry Multan for fixed orthodontic treatment were taken. For data registration SPSS 20 (IBM Chicago Illinois) was used. Frequency of extractions with regards to gender, skeletal pattern and types of extraction pattern was determined. In order to assess the association among variables Chi square test was applied and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.
Result: In respect of extraction group, 222 (41.3%) were males and 316 (58.7%) were female and whereas in nonextraction group, 83 (16.8%) were males and 411 (83.2%) were females. The difference was statistically significant (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2091-1327 2091-1335 |
DOI: | 10.3126/ojn.v10i3.35488 |