A Comparison of class I malocclusion treatment outcomes with and without extractions using an ABO grading system for dental casts and radiographs

Bunga Ayub Rukiah, Amalia Oeripto, Nurhayati Harahap

= http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v50.i3.p144-148
Abstract views = 744 times | downloads = 424 times


Background: Class I malocclusion can be treated with or without resort to extraction. However, despite the indications, a controversy is still ongoing as to whether one option is preferable to another. One of the most frequent controversies centers on whether treatment involving extractions will produce superior results than treatment not culminating in extraction. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the results of treating class I malocclusion with extractions and those without extraction using an ABO grading system. Methods: Comparing ABO scores in patients’ dental casts and radiographs with class I malocclusion with and without extraction. Observational research incorporating case control methods was conducted involving 40 patients with class I malocclusion. Samples were divided into two groups, one treated with extraction (group E) and the other without extraction as the control group (K). The results of the treatment were measured and assessed using eight variables of the ABO Grading System. Results: The total score for the group treated with extractions was 23.65±7.82, while that for group K was 26.50±7.02. There was no significant difference in the total score between the two groups. Nevertheless, class I malocclusion treated with extraction had a lower score than without extraction. Conclusions: There was no difference in the total score of the ABO grading system for class I malocclusion patients treated with and without extractions.


class I malocclusion; extraction; non extraction; grading system ABO

Full Text:



Mtaya M, Brudvik P, Astrom AN. Prevalence of malocclusion and its relationship with socio-demographic factors, dental caries, and oral hygiene in 12- to 14-year-old Tanzanian schoolchildren. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31(5): 467–76.

Aldrees AM. Pattern of skeletal and dental malocclusions in Saudi orthodontic patients. Saudi Med J. 2012; 33(3): 315–20.

Wahab RMA, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SHZ. Cephalometric and

malocclusion analysis of Kadazan dusun ethnic orthodontic patients. Sains Malaysiana. 2013; 42(1): 25–32.

Konstantonis D, Anthopoulou C, Makou M. Extraction decision and identification of treatment predictors in class I malocclusions. Prog Orthod. 2013; 14: 1–8.

Konstantonis D. The impact of extraction vs nonextraction treatment on soft tissue changes in class I borderline malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82(2): 209–17.

Hong M, Kook Y, Kim M, Lee J, Kim H, Baek S. The improvement and completion of outcome index: a new assessment system for quality of orthodontic treatment. Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46(4): 199–211.

Hong M, Kook Y, Baek S, Kim M. Comparison of treatment outcome assessment for class I malocclusion patients: peer assessment rating versus American board of orthodontics-objective grading system. J Korean Dent Sci. 2014; 7(1): 6–15.

Jain M, Varghese J, Mascarenhas R, Mogra S, Shetty S, Dhakar N. Assessment of clinical outcomes of Roth and MBT bracket prescription using the American board of orthodontics objective grading system. Contemp Clin Dent. 2013; 4: 307–12.

Premkumar S. Orthodontics : preparatory manual for undergraduates. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2008. p. 436-40.

Cansunar HA, Uysal T. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in nonextraction, 2 maxillary premolar extraction, and 4 premolar extraction protocols with the American board of orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014; 145(5): 595–602.

Anthopoulou C, Konstantonis D, Makou M. Treatment outcomes after extraction and nonextraction treatment evaluated with the American board of orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014; 146(6): 717–23.

Mavreas D, Athanasiou AE. Factors affecting the duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30(4): 386–95.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

View My Stats