International orthodontics · 2026
Assessment of pre-treatment diagnostic characteristics in patients with borderline bimaxillary protrusion: A pilot comparison of bi-jaw distalization versus premolar extraction.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gautam Rajaganesh, Ahuja Dhruv, Shetty Siddarth, Ashith M Varadraj, Batra Puneet, Chandhini G, Khera Anshu, Mithra Prasanna, Shenoy Nandita
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with bimaxillary protrusion often seek orthodontic treatment to improve facial aesthetics. Treatment planning is complex and may involve premolar extractions or bi-jaw distalization using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and third molar extractions. Choice of modality is partly subjective, particularly in borderline cases.
OBJECTIVE: To assess pre-treatment arch forms, dentoskeletal, and soft-tissue characteristics for guiding treatment selection between bi-jaw distalization and premolar extraction in borderline bimaxillary protrusion. The secondary objective was to compare these characteristics between the two treatment groups.
METHODOLOGY: This retrospective pilot study included all patient records meeting inclusion criteria from January 2022 to December 2024. A total of 26 patients with borderline bimaxillary protrusion were analysed and categorized into two groups: bimaxillary distalization (n=13) and premolar extraction (n=13). Pre-treatment CBCT-derived digital models were used for 3D polynomial arch-form analysis, alongside cephalometric assessment. Groups were compared using chi-square tests for categorical data and Student's t-tests for continuous variables.
RESULTS: Among 26 patients (9 males, 17 females; mean age 20.81±3.72years), square arch forms were more frequent in the bi-jaw distalization group (61.5%; 95% CI: 35.5-82.3). Cephalometric parameters did not differ significantly between groups (P>0.05). Measurement reliability was high (ICC: 0.76-0.81).
CONCLUSION: Within this pilot retrospective study, arch form morphology was associated with treatment choice. Evaluating arch form alongside dento-skeletal and soft-tissue features may aid personalized planning for borderline bimaxillary protrusion. These observations are descriptive and non-causal; larger prospective studies are needed to validate pre-treatment arch forms.
OBJECTIVE: To assess pre-treatment arch forms, dentoskeletal, and soft-tissue characteristics for guiding treatment selection between bi-jaw distalization and premolar extraction in borderline bimaxillary protrusion. The secondary objective was to compare these characteristics between the two treatment groups.
METHODOLOGY: This retrospective pilot study included all patient records meeting inclusion criteria from January 2022 to December 2024. A total of 26 patients with borderline bimaxillary protrusion were analysed and categorized into two groups: bimaxillary distalization (n=13) and premolar extraction (n=13). Pre-treatment CBCT-derived digital models were used for 3D polynomial arch-form analysis, alongside cephalometric assessment. Groups were compared using chi-square tests for categorical data and Student's t-tests for continuous variables.
RESULTS: Among 26 patients (9 males, 17 females; mean age 20.81±3.72years), square arch forms were more frequent in the bi-jaw distalization group (61.5%; 95% CI: 35.5-82.3). Cephalometric parameters did not differ significantly between groups (P>0.05). Measurement reliability was high (ICC: 0.76-0.81).
CONCLUSION: Within this pilot retrospective study, arch form morphology was associated with treatment choice. Evaluating arch form alongside dento-skeletal and soft-tissue features may aid personalized planning for borderline bimaxillary protrusion. These observations are descriptive and non-causal; larger prospective studies are needed to validate pre-treatment arch forms.