Title Increased Interincisal Angle in Orthodontic Extraction Cases Treated With Lingual Appliances
Clinical Question Do lingual orthodontic appliances produce similar interincisal angles as traditional labial appliances in orthodontic extraction cases?
Clinical Bottom Line Lingual appliances do not produce interincisal angles similar to traditional labial appliances in orthodontic extraction cases.
Best Evidence  
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
25153130Deguchi/201549 Patients ≥18 y.o treated w/ labial or lingual orthodontic appliances after premolar extraction Retrospective cohort
Key resultsLingual appliances can be used just as efficiently as labial appliances in treating extraction cases with regard to functional parameters and treatment time. The average treatment times were 29.4 ± 5.6 months and 32.5 ± 6.7 months in the labial and lingual groups, respectively, which is not statistically significant. Root resorption was not significantly different between the labial (1.1 ± 0.5 mm) and the lingual (1.3 ± 0.6 mm) groups. However, "significantly more retraction of both maxillary and mandibular incisors was observed in the lingual group."
Evidence Search "lingual orthodontic appliance extraction"
Comments on
The Evidence
Validity: This retrospective study compared the first 24 consecutive cases of patients with lingual appliances that met the inclusion criteria, comparing them with 25 cases of patients with labial appliances that met the same criteria. Pre- and post-treatment evaluation was done using cephalometric analysis, the objective grading system, and peer assessment review. Although there were 49 patients overall, the number of individuals within the labial and lingual subgroups was relatively small. In addition, there seemed to be a majority of women in both groups, with 20 women and 4 men in the lingual group, and 20 women and 5 men in the labial group.
Applicability Labial appliances are used more often than lingual appliances amongst both men and women. However, due to a patient’s desire for esthetics, lingual appliances might be chosen as the preferred treatment option. Because of the tendency to have increased uprighting of maxillary and mandibular incisors with lingual appliances, this treatment might be contraindicated in patients with highly upright incisors prior to treatment. This retrospective study evaluated patients with maxillary and mandibular first premolar extractions and class II malocclusion specifically.
Specialty (General Dentistry) (Orthodontics)
Keywords Lingual appliance, Clinical outcome, Peer assessment rating, Objective grading system
ID# 3233
Date of submission 04/27/2017
E-mail daniela@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Andrew Daniel
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor Peter T. Gakunga, BDS, MS, PhD
Faculty mentor e-mail gakunga@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
None available