BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Various extraction protocols have been followed for successful orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extraction protocols in patients who had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and also who had reported for continuing orthodontic treatment from other clinics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty eight patients who registered for orthodontic treatment at the Faculty of Dentistry were divided into 10 extraction protocols based on the Orthodontic treatment protocol given by Janson et al. and were evaluated for statistical significance.
RESULTS: The descriptive statistics of the study revealed a total of 40 (29%) patients in protocol 1, 43 (31.2%) in protocol 2, 18 (13%) in protocol 3, 16 (11.6%) in protocol 5, and 12 (8.7%) in Type 3 category of protocol 9. The Type 3 category in protocol 9 was statistically significant compared to other studies. Midline shift and collapse of the arch form were noticed in these individuals.
CONCLUSION: Extraction of permanent teeth such as canine and lateral incisors without rational reasons could have devastating consequences on the entire occlusion. The percentage of cases wherein extraction of permanent teeth in the crowded region was adopted as a treatment option instead of orthodontic treatment is still prevalent in dental practice. The shortage of orthodontists in Malaysia, the long waiting period, and lack of subjective need for orthodontic treatment at an earlier age group were the reasons for the patient's to choose extraction of the mal-aligned teeth such as the maxillary canine or maxillary lateral incisors.
KEYWORDS: Extraction protocol; Malaysia; irrational extraction; orthodontic treatment