Profil Bibir dan Posisi Insisivus Perawatan Kasus Borderline Klas I dengan Pencabutan dan Tanpa Pencabutan

https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.7668

Yenni Hanimastuti(1*), Pinandi Sri Pudyani(2), Darmawan Sutantyo(3)

(1) Program Studi Ortodonsia, Program Pendidikan Dokter Gigi Spesialis Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(2) Bagian Ortodonsia, Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(3) Bagian Ortodonsia, Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Penentuan rencana perawatan ortodontik dengan pencabutan atau tanpa pencabutan masih menjadi perdebatan, terutama pada kasus borderline.Perawatan ortodontik dengan atau tanpa pencabutan dapat mempengaruhi profil wajah.Perubahan pada penampilan wajah terjadi akibat adanya perubahan posisi gigi anterior yang dapat mempengaruhi perubahan profil jaringan lunak wajah terutama pada daerah bibir. Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui perbandingan perubahan profil bibir dan posisi gigi insisivus pada kasus borderline klas I antara perawatan dengan pencabutan 4 premolar kedua dan tanpa pencabutan. Penelitian dilakukan pada 28 sefalogram lateral kasus borderline klas I  yang dirawat dengan teknik straight wire, terdiri dari 2 kelompok (13 kasus dengan pencabutan dan 15 kasus tanpa pencabutan). Masing-masing sefalogram dilakukan pengukuran profil bibir,yaitu jarak bibir atas dan bawah terhadapVertical Reference Plane (VRP) dan sudut interlabial; serta posisi gigi insisivus, yaitu jarak gigi insisivus atas dan bawah terhadap Vertical Reference Plane (VRP), sebelum dan sesudah perawatan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pada tahap awal perawatan kedua kelompok memiliki karakteristik profil bibir dan posisi gigi insisivus yang sama (p>0,05). Terdapat perbedaan bermakna (p<0,05) pada perubahan posisi bibir, sudut interlabial, dan posisi gigi insisivus antara kelompok yang dirawat dengan pencabutan dan tanpa pencabutan setelah perawatan ortodontik. Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah profil bibir dan posisi gigi insisivus pada kasus borderline klas I yang dirawat dengan pencabutan 4 premolar kedua menjadi lebih retrusif daripada profil bibir dan posisi gigi insisivus kasus borderline klas I yang dirawat tanpa pencabutan.

Lips Profile And Incisivus Position In Class Iborder Line Cases With Or Wthout Extraction. Determining whether an orthodontic treatment plan should be with or without extraction is still debatable, particularly for borderline cases. In fact, such a treatment could affect the facial profile. The change in facial appearance is caused by the reposition of anterior teeth which could cause facial soft tissue profile changes, particularly at the lips area. The aim of this study is to compare the changes of lips profile and incisors position in class I borderline cases which have been treated with extraction of 4 second premolars and non-extraction.The study was conducted on 28 lateral cephalograms of class I borderline cases which have been treated with straight wire technique, as divided into two groups (13 extraction and 15 non-extraction cases). Each cephalograms had measured on lips profile, which was the distance of upper and lower lips to Vertical Reference Plane (VRP) and interlabial angle; and the position of incisors, which was the distance of upper and lower incisors to Vertical Reference Plane (VRP), at pre and post-treatment. The results of this study have shown that at the initial treatment, lips profile and incisors position for both groups have similar characteristics (p>0,05). There are significant differences (p<0.05) on lips position, interlabial angle, and incisors position changes between the extraction and non- extractiion cases after orthodontic treatment. From this study, it can be concluded that lips profile and incisors position in class I borderline cases treated with the extraction of second bicuspid are more retruded than that of non-extraction cases


Keywords


profil bibir; posisi insisivus; borderline klas I; pencabutan premolar kedua; tanpa pencabutan; lips profile; incisivus position; class I borderline cases; extraction; non-extraction; second bicuspid

Full Text:

PDF


References

Grabber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics current principles and techniques. Ed 5. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co; 2012. H. 8-14, 561-80, 1023-32.

Al-Labban YR. A Cephalometric lips analysis and its relation to other cephalometric measurements in iraqi adult individuals. J Bagh Coll Dent. 2011; 23(3): 156-9.

Al Yami EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Van Hof MA. Stability of orthodontic treatment outcome: followup until 10 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop.1999; 115: 300-4.

Perkins PA, Staley RN. Change in lip vermillion height during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1993; 103: 147-54.

Linklater RA, Fox NA. The Long-term benefits of orthodontic treatment. British Dent J. 2002; 192(10): 583-7.

Saelens NA, De Smit AA. Therapeutic changes in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998; 20: 225-36.

Lim HJ, Ko KT, Hwang HS. Esthetic impact of premolar extraction and nonextraction treatments on korean borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133: 524-31.

Germec D, Taner U. Effects of extraction and nonextraction therapy with air-rotor stripping on facial esthetic in postadolescent borderline patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133: 539-49.

Bowman SJ, Johnston LE. The Esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatments on caucasian patients. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70: 3-10.

Kocadereli I. Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002;122: 67-72.

Bascifti FA and Usumez S. Effects of extraction and nonextraction treatment on class I and class II subject. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73: 36-42.

Carey CW. Diagnosis and case analysis in orthodontic. Am J Orthod. 1951; 38: 149-61.

Xu T, Liu Y, Yang M, Huang W. Comparison of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment outcomes for borderline chinese patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006; 129: 672-7.

Bhalajhi SI. Orthodontics the art of science, Kuwait : Arya; 2000. H. 69-70, 176-7, 259-61.

Aksu M, Kocadereli I. Arch width changes in extraction and nonextraction treatment in class I patients. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75: 948-52.

Konstantonis D. The Impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes in class i borderline malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82: 209-17.

Drobocky OB, Smith RJ. Changes in facial profile during orthodontic treatment with extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1989; 95: 220-30.

Kusnoto H. Penggunaan cepalometri radiografi dalam bidang ortodonti. Jakarta: Bagian Ortodonti FKG Universitas Trisakti; 1977. H. 3-15.

Al-Abdwani R, Moles DR, Noar JH. Change of incisor inclination effects on points A and B. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79: 462-7.

Lew K. Profile change following orthodontic treatment of bimaxillary protrusion in adult with the begg appliance. Eur J Orthod. 1989; 11: 375-81.

Brock II RA, Taylor RW, Buschang PH, Behrents RG. Ethnic differences in upper lip response to incisor retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;127: 683-91.

Kasai K. Soft tissue adaptability to hard tissue in facial profiles. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998; 113: 674-84.

Profitt WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. Ed 4. St. Louis : The CV Mosby Co; 2007. H. 176-87, 276-84.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.7668

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 826 | views : 941

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2015 Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia




Currently, Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia indexed by:

         

 

 

 

 

 

 View My Stats


real
time web analytics