Assessment of pre-treatment diagnostic characteristics in patients with borderline bimaxillary protrusion: A pilot comparison of bi-jaw distalization versus premolar extraction - 10/01/26
, Siddarth Shetty 3, M. Varadraj Ashith 3, Puneet Batra 2, G. Chandhini 4, Anshu Khera 5, Prasanna Mithra 6, Nandita Shenoy 7Summary |
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 ± 3.72 years), 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.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Bimaxillary protrusion, Bijaw distalization, Premolar extractions, Dentoskeletal features
Plan
Vol 24 - N° 2S
Article 101134- juin 2026 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Characterization of biocorrosion by sulfate-reducing bacteria in extra-alveolar mini-implants installed in ex vivo human mandibles and exposed to the oral consortium of Desulfovibrio fairfieldensis: Microbiological, morphological, and mass loss analysis
- Camilla Andrade de Souza Nascimento Romão, Caren Leite Spindola Vilela, Andrea Fagundes Campello, Walter Barreiro Cravo Junior, Fabiano Luiz Heggendorn
- Three-dimensional evaluation of palatal vault changes after unilateral posterior crossbite correction with quad helix or rapid maxillary expansion: A randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up
- Stina Hansson, Rune Lindsten, Eva Josefsson, Leja Birk, Maja Ovsenik, Sofia Petrén, Anders Magnuson, Farhan Bazargani
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?