Extraction vs. Nonextraction on Soft-Tissue Profile Change in Patients with Malocclusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives. We aimed to summarize the current evidence regarding the impact of extraction vs. nonextraction in orthodontic treatment on patients’ soft-tissue profile with malocclusion. Methods. Between April 30th and November 30th, 2020, we searched PubMed and SCOPUS for published papers from inception to November 2020 using “orthodontic,” “extraction,” “nonextraction,” and “Malocclusion.” Included studies were summarized, and relevant data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager 5.4. Results. Pooled data from four controlled trials demonstrated a nonsignificant difference between extraction and nonextraction in terms of SNA (MD=0.50, 95% CI: -0.37, 1.38; p=0.26), SNB (MD=0.11, 95% CI: -1.23, 1.44; p=0.88), FMA (MD=1.82, 95% CI: -2.39, 6.02; p=0.40), IMPA (MD=0.06, 95% CI: -8.83, -8.94; p=0.99), overjet (MD=−1.47, 95% CI: -6.21, 3.26; p=0.54), and overbite (MD=0.50, 95% CI: -1.40, 2.40; p=0.60). On the other hand, the extraction method significantly increased the ANB compared with the nonextraction group (MD=0.78, 95% CI: 0.25, 1.31; p=0.004). Conclusion. The current evidence demonstrated that nonextraction protocols for orthodontic treatment are a safe and effective alternative to extraction protocols; individually tailored treatment strategies should be applied. More randomized controlled trials are critically needed to safely make an evidence-based treatment conclusion.