↓ Skip to main content

Vertical skeletal changes after extraction and non-extraction treatment in matched class I patients identified by a discriminant analysis: cephalometric appraisal and Procrustes superimposition

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vertical skeletal changes after extraction and non-extraction treatment in matched class I patients identified by a discriminant analysis: cephalometric appraisal and Procrustes superimposition
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40510-017-0198-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philipp Beit, Dimitrios Konstantonis, Alexandros Papagiannis, Theodore Eliades

Abstract

In the long-lasting debate of extraction versus non-extraction treatment, the impact of extractions on the skeletal vertical dimension remains rather unclear. The aim of this retrospective research study was to obtain a bias-free sample of morphologically similar borderline patients treated with or without extraction of the four first premolars and to retrospectively evaluate the vertical changes that occurred. A borderline sample of 83 patients, 41 treated with four first premolar extractions and 42 treated without, was obtained by means of discriminant analysis applied to a previously investigated parent sample of 542 class I patients. The pretreatment and posttreatment cephalometric radiographs were analyzed digitally, and seven measurements were assessed for vertical skeletal changes. Also, average tracings between the two treatment groups were evaluated using the Procrustes superimposition method. The variables of SN to Go-Gn and Y-axis showed adjusted intergroup differences of - 0.91° and - 1.11° (P = 0.04). Comparing the mean intra-group differences of all the variables simultaneously, a significant difference was found between the two treatment groups (overall P value = 0.04). In the extraction group, only the gonial angle showed a significant decrease (P = 0.01) while the overall P value evaluating the intra-group differences between pre- and posttreatment was significant (overall P value < 0.01). In the non-extraction group, the variable of N-ANS/N-Me showed a significant decrease (P = 0.02) and the overall P value evaluating the intra-group differences between pre- and posttreatment was also significant (overall P value < 0.01). Differences in treatment duration were assessed using a log-normal model and showed that extraction treatment lasted significantly longer than non-extraction treatment (P < 0.01). The borderline group of patients identified by the discriminant analysis exhibited similar morphological characteristics at treatment's onset; therefore, the posttreatment changes could safely be attributed to the choice of extraction or non-extraction treatment and not to pre-existing differences. Treatment choice had an impact on the patients' vertical skeletal dimensions. Patients treated with four first premolar extractions showed a slight decrease in the vertical skeletal measurements, whereas non-extraction patient treatment showed a slight increase. The treatment time was also significantly higher in the extraction group.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 53%
Psychology 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,049,546
of 12,330,736 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#63
of 179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,410
of 346,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,330,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 179 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.