Journal of Dental & Oro-facial Research Vol. 14 Issue 01 Jan.

2018 JDOR

Extraction vs Non Extraction Controversy:

A Review
*Adeeba Khanum1, Prashantha G.S.2, Silju Mathew3, Madhavi Naidu4 and Amit Kumar5
*Corresponding Author Email: adeebakhanum0912@gmail.com

Contributors:
1 Postgraduate,2Professor,3Professor
Abstract
and Head,4 Assitant Professor, 5 Ex
Postgraduate, Department of Orthodontics, is rich in it’s history as well as controversies. Controversies unlike
Orthodontics and Dentofacial disputes, never end and cannot be resolved completely validating any one side of
Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental the argument through scientific evidence. One such controversy is extraction vs non-
Sciences, M.S. Ramaiah University extraction. The last two decades has seen noticeable decline of extraction in
of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru - orthodontic treatment. This is augmented with increased pressure from the referring
560054
dentist to treat the patient without extraction treatment modality, being unaware of
the literature supportive of extractions in specific cases. This review provides a
summary of historical background of the controversy, the perspectives of various
authors, the reasons for decline in extractions and the present understanding of the
debate.

Keywords: Orthodontics, Extraction, Non-extraction, Controversy, TMD

1. INTRODUCTION delivered a lecture in New York against

extractions, stating that extractions caused “A
In the common man’s perspective, crowding, loss of an important organ” .3
more often than spacing constitutes
malocclusion. Treatment of a crowded arch Edward H Angle was the most dominant,
requires space gaining. This has been achieved dynamic and influential figure in orthodontics.
through two ways of treatment – extraction or (Fig. 2) He is regarded as the ‘’Father of Modern
non-extraction modality. Extraction to create Orthodontics’’.4 Initially, Edward Hartley Angle
space for accommodation of the remaining teeth believed that extraction of teeth was necessary to
of crowded dental arches was written up in the solve orthodontic treatment problems. Angle’s
dental literature as long as 1771. It was a new idea book, “Treatment of Malocclusion of the Teeth
then and certainly is not so now. and Fractures of the Maxillae- Angle System”
sixth edition, was published in 1900, containing
2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE an enormous amount of material and case reports
Extraction of deciduous teeth has been in practice in which the extraction of teeth was involved.
since ancient civilizations. There was little or no Angle advocated extraction to improve facial
opposition to extraction of deciduous teeth to appearance.5
clear the way for permanent successors when Rousseau, a philosopher, believed that many of
Celsus and Pierre Fauchard recommended it.1 the ills of the modern man owed to the
(Fig. 1).The disagreement arose when dentists environment we now live in. He emphasized on
started removing permanent teeth for the the perfectibility of man. Consequently, from an
treatment. Hunter (Natural History of Teeth, orthodontic viewpoint, a perfect occlusion could
1771), was the foremost author, who opposed it never be achieved by extracting teeth. This
on the basis that it inhibited growth. In the early became an article of faith for Angle and the early
1800s, class II division 1 malocclusions were orthodontists, that every person had the
usually treated by extraction of maxillary first prospective to attain an ideal relationship of all
premolars. But Delabarre in 1818, warned against thirty two natural teeth, and therefore extraction
its unwanted sequelae. He said, “It is much easier for orthodontic purposes was never needed.
to extract teeth than to determine if it is absolutely
necessary”.2 In 1887, Isaac B. Davenport In the early 1900s, a German anatomist and

RUAS 41
Journal of Dental & Oro-facial Research Vol 14. Issue 01 Jan. 2018 JDOR

surgeon, Julius Wolff demonstrated that bone Association, Calvin Case presented an article,
trabeculae arrange in reaction to the stress lines "The Question of Extraction in Orthodontia”, in
on the bone ("Wolff's law of bone"). Angle was which he strongly disapproved the creationist
impressed by the discovery that the architecture belief of the Angle School, considering their
of bone responds to the stresses placed on that ignorance on heredity as a cause of malocclusion
part of the skeleton and thereby reasoned that, ,their thought that local factors were responsible
forces transmitted to the teeth would cause bone for malocclusion and replacing teeth in their
to grow around, if teeth were placed in a proper planned positions would result in a harmonious
occlusion. He described his edgewise appliance face.4,7
as a ‘bone growing appliance’. Any relapse
observed in any of his treated cases was Calvin Case further presented a patient to prove
considered to be a result of inadequate occlusion. his point. He stated that the patient’s dental
Angle believed that the relationship of the protrusion would have deteriorated if a non-
dentition to the face, and with it the esthetics of extraction treatment was done. Thereby
the lower face, would vary. But for each highlighting that non-extraction treatment cannot
individual, ideal facial esthetics would result be done in all the cases, to achieve a harmonious
when the teeth were placed in ideal occlusion. So face. Even though Case had better argument by
accordingly, his treatment for every patient far, Angle's followers won the day, and extraction
involved expansion of the dental arches and of teeth for orthodontic reasons gradually
elastics as needed to bring the teeth into declined from the American orthodontic scene in
occlusion, and extraction was not necessary for the period between World Wars I and II. (Fig. 5)
stability of result or esthetics.6

Fig. 3 Calvin S. Case Fig. 4 Martin Dewey

Fig. 1 Pierre Fauchard Fig. 2 Angle E.H.

3. The EXTRACTION DEBATE

Angle’s concepts did not go unchallenged. His
great professional rival, Calvin Case, argued that
even if the arches were expanded to bring all the
teeth into alignment, the stability and esthetics
would not be satisfactory in the long run for most Fig. 5 Graphical representation of extraction trends
of the patients. (Fig. 3). The controversy
culminated in a widely publicized debate between
Angle's student Martin Dewey and Calvin Case 4. The RE-INTRODUCTION of
(Fig.4). The battle commenced in 1911 that EXTRACTION in MID - 20th Century
culminated as "The Extraction Debate of 1911." In the 1930s, relapse after non-extraction
In 1911, at a meeting of the National Dental treatment was frequently observed. In 1952,
Charles Tweed, a student of Angle, presented

RUAS 42
Journal of Dental & Oro-facial Research Vol 14. Issue 01 Jan. 2018 JDOR

case reports on patients who were treated by non indiscriminate premolar extractions. Studies by
– extraction initially using Angle’s treatment Little et al in 1981 and Mc Reynolds et al in 1991,
philosophies and were later re treated with first supported the fact that premolar extraction does
premolar extractions.(Fig. 6) Four first premolar not guarantee stability of tooth alignment.
teeth were removed and the teeth were aligned Overtime, change from fully banded to largely
and retracted. After the retreatment, Tweed bonded appliances made it easier to expand
observed that the occlusion was much more arches, therefore, border line case were generally
stable. This gave rise to the Tweed philosophy treated better without extraction.10,11
owing to the scientific evidence he provided
towards extraction treatment modality. Hence extraction of teeth for orthodontic
Extractions were eventually accepted into purposes was rare in the early 20th century,
orthodontics.8 During the same period, Raymond peaked in the 1960s, declined to about the levels
Begg in Australia was developing an appliance of the early 1950s, in 1990s, and has remained
system based on therapeutic extraction as well there for first few years of the 21st century.7
(Fig. 7). His appliance was based on the theory of 5. REASONS FOR CONTROVERSY
attritional occlusion. This theory was
strengthened by Professor Stockard’s breeding Facial Profile
experiments which indicated that malocclusion
The major concern in choosing between
could be inherited, rather than developing the
extraction and non-extraction treatment modality
potential within each patient. It appeared
is the effect it has on the soft tissue profile of the
necessary for the orthodontist to recognize
patient. Non extractionists believe that
genetically determined disparities between tooth
extractions result in “dish in” of the face, while
size & jaw size, or to acknowledge that the lack
extractionists claim that without extractions in
of proximal wear on teeth produced tooth size –
certain cases the periodontal health will be
jaw size discrepancies during development. In
compromised and the profile will appear full.
either case, extraction was frequently necessary.9
Studies conducted by Rushing et al in 1995,
Stephens et al in 2005 and Erdinc et al in 2007,
support the fact that general dentists and
orthodontists were unable to distinguish between
the facial profiles of subjects treated with
extraction and non-extraction.12–14 A three-
dimensional soft-tissue analyses by Solem et al in
2013 following treatment by extraction revealed
that, distinct changes were observed in patients
who had protrusion, and the retraction of the lip
was directly associated with retraction of the
upper and lower incisors.15 Therefore, extraction
Fig. 5 Charles Tweed Fig. 6 Raymond Begg
in few patients with fuller profiles, does not
The era of 1970-1990’s saw the revival of non- necessarily cause “dish-in” of the face, and in fact
extraction treatment. There came a period in can result in better esthetics than non-extraction
orthodontics when premolars were extensively treatment in such patients. Hence, clinicians have
being extracted for correction of malocclusion to plan the cases suitably, to avoid over-retraction
with Tweed edgewise philosophy and the Begg of the anterior segment leading to unfavourable
appliance. This resulted in unattractive facial profile changes. The mandible grows more than
features. Subsequently, facial harmony and the maxilla, which tends to straighten the profile
esthetics was given more importance by over-time, throughout adulthood. This was
orthodontists thereby reducing the rate of attributed to the fourth dimension ‘’time’’, as
termed by Sarver and Ackerman in 2003. This

RUAS 43
Journal of Dental & Oro-facial Research Vol 14. Issue 01 Jan. 2018 JDOR

could be a confounding factor. They advised the Stability and Impaction Risk
orthodontists to give adequate emphasis on the
growth of soft tissues, maturation and aging in In 1999, Bowman cautioned that adhering to a
their treatment planning.7,16–20 non–extraction protocol would not always be the
best for many patients. Since the patients most
Extractions & Temporomandibular Joint likely to experience ineffective orthodontic
Disorders (TMD) treatment are those with crowding and protrusion,
a non-extraction approach may not provide
A radical district court case in 1987, involved a optimum esthetics, function, periodontal health,
sixteen year-old girl, diagnosed with Angle’s and stability in such cases. On the contrary,
Class II, division 1 malocclusion. Her Erdinc et al in 2006, suggested that the extraction
orthodontist planned the treatment with premolar of premolars for orthodontic treatment to
extractions and the use of headgear. alleviate crowding may not enhance stability.25,26
Subsequently, her family claimed that the
treatment had caused TMD and sued the According to Casetta et al 2013, an increased
orthodontist. Their family dentist debated that the prevalence of mandibular second-molar
extractions and use of headgear caused excessive impactions may be correlated with the increasing
incisor retraction resulting from distal fame of non-extraction therapy. A study by
displacement of the mandible and thereby, Turkuz et al in a Turkish population in 2013
internal derangement. The orthodontist was associated increased risk of third-molar
convicted by the jury for mistreatment, and the impactions with non-extraction protocols. 81.8%
case was widely conversed among the dental of the patients who did not undergo extractions
professionals. Most orthodontists did not believe had impacted third molars, compared to 63.6% of
that premolar extractions could lead to TMD, yet the patients who underwent premolar extractions.
their fear of malpractice suits was heightened if Saysel et al in 2005, found angulation of third
they advocated extraction treatment modality. In molars to be more favorable, as well as increased
the early 1990s, the orthodontic scientific third-molar eruption space, following extraction
community took charge and put forth high- treatment.27–29
quality evidence stating that there is no direct
relationship between TMD and orthodontic 6. REASONS FOR DECLINE IN
treatment. The literature also discusses and EXTRACTIONS
supports the contention that any type of Bonding
orthodontic treatment has a neutral effect.21,22 Bonding of fixed appliances that replaced
Buccal Corridors banding to quite an extent, permitted non-
extraction treatment in more patients, since band
Few orthodontists are of the belief that extracting thicknesses tended to promote crowding.
maxillary premolars leads to narrowing of the
dental arch, resulting in broader buccal corridors Airotor Stripping (ARS)
which is not esthetic. Dr. Jack Sheridan promoted ARS or
interproximal enameloplasty. He believed that if
nature could reduce the interproximal enamel,
To the contrary, studies by Janson et al in 2011, without resulting in increased caries risk or
Ioi et al in 2012, and Meyer et al in 2014 are of periodontal problems, orthodontists could also do
the opinion that the dental arch does not become the same, if they exploit the advantages of full-
narrow with maxillary premolar extraction and arch bonding, which opens the interproximal
more importantly, broader buccal corridors are areas and allows for reshaping. Around 6-8mm of
not always unattractive.23,24 the space can be gained to resolve protrusion,
crowding or a combination of both.30,31

RUAS 44
Journal of Dental & Oro-facial Research Vol 14. Issue 01 Jan. 2018 JDOR

Expansion brackets are as beneficial as conventional

brackets except for two advantages they offer:
Expansion has been promoted since long to treat reduced chairside time (insertion and removal of
posterior crossbite. In the 1980s, it became wire is easy), and control of mandibular incisor
popular as a substitute to extraction treatment to proclination.35,36
resolve crowding even without the presence of
posterior crossbite. Advocates of rapid maxillary
expansion (RME) claim resolving of borderline
crowding of 3-6mm in the mandible in patients
with narrow transpalatal widths. They contend
that RME will result in reciprocal mandibular
expansion because the mandibular arch form is
dictated by the maxillary arch form. McNamara
Jr. et al reported that a favourable change in the Fig. 7 Dehiscence and fenestrations
sagittal occlusal relationships between maxillary
and mandibular teeth can be facilitated by RME. Preservation of Leeway Space
Fields cautioned that “to date, there is no credible
According to Gianelly, about 75% of Class I and
long-term post retention evidence that early
II cases with mild-to-moderate crowding can be
intervention to prepare, develop, balance, or
treated without expansion or extractions. This can
expand arches by any other name has any efficacy
be done by conserving the leeway space of the
in providing a less crowded permanent dentition
primary second molars, also called as E-space.
later”.32
(Fig. 9) Brennan and Gianelly observed that, in
Stability of expansion, particularly in the the mixed dentition, around 5mm of crowding in
mandible, has little evidence demonstrating the incisor region can be resolved with the use of a
same. Many authors support the contention that lingual arch. In cases of moderate-to-severe
intercanine expansion is unstable. A study by crowding, coupled with protrusion , in which
Housley et al in 2003 concluded that in patients leeway space has been lost, molars have drifted
who underwent mandibular expansion, forward, and expansion is no longer an option,
intercanine widths were maintained in only 8% of extraction may be the only choice of
patients, for six years and three months after fixed treatment.37,38
retention.33 Additionally, prospective
complications of expansion include the risks of
creating a dehiscence (loss of alveolar bone on
the facial aspect of a tooth that leaves a
characteristic oval, root-exposed defect from the
cementoenamel junction apically) as a result of
overexpansion. (Fig. 8). Anterior teeth tend to
move labially, when treated by expansion of the
arches to alleviate moderate-to severe crowding.
Extractions on the other hand , allow the teeth to
move along the alveolus.34
Self-Ligating Brackets
There have been assertions that the efficacy and Fig. 8 Leeway space
effectivity of self-ligating brackets is better than Autonomy
conventional brackets. It reduces treatment time
and avoids the need for extractions in most cases. The patients in this era are more actively involved
From an evidence-based standpoint, self-ligating in their treatment decisions than at any time in the

RUAS 45
Journal of Dental & Oro-facial Research Vol 14. Issue 01 Jan. 2018 JDOR

past. The fear of pain and loss of teeth appliances and the extraction
overpowers the patient’s thinking. Unfortunately, controversy. Am J Orthod Dentofac
this may result in a competing practitioner to Orthop. 2005;128(6):795–800.
offer a more “conservative” non-extraction 5. Angle EH. The importance of the first
option, even if it is not in the best interest of the molars in their relation to orthodontia.
patient.39 Dent Cosm. 1903;45:173–8.
6. Wahl N. The last graduate. PCSO Bull.
Contemporary extraction guidelines:40 1988;60:37–42.
<4mm arch length discrepancy–extraction rarely 7. Rinchuse DJ, Busch LS, Dibagno DA,
indicated. Cozzani M. Extraction treatment Part 1-
The Extraction vs. Nonextraction
5-9mm arch length discrepancy – non-extraction Debate. J Clin Orthod. 2014
(posterior expansion) /extraction. Dec;48(12):753-60.
8. Dale JG. The Henry Ford of
10mm or more arch length discrepancy –
orthodontics. J Charles H Tweed Found.
extraction almost always required to obtain
1988;16:59–76.
enough space.
9. Simms MR. P. Raymond Begg (1898–
7. CONCLUSIONS 1983). Am J Orthod. 1983;83(5):445–6.
10. Little RM, Wallen TR, Riedel RA.
Identifying guidelines for the extraction vs non- Stability and relapse of mandibular
extraction decision in orthodontic treatment is a anterior alignment– first premolar
complex task. Presently, the controversy is not extraction cases treated by traditional
afflicted by as much beliefs as it was almost 100 edgewise orthodontics. 1998;1981:1–15.
years ago and both treatment options are still 11. McReynolds DC, Little RM. Mandibular
open. The option to treat with extraction or non- second premolar extraction—
extraction should be made objectively for each postretention evaluation of stability and
case based on strong evidence with equal relapse. Angle Orthod. 1991;61(2):133–
attention on the soft tissue paradigm. 44.
12. Rushing SE, Silberman SL, Meydrech
References
EF, Tuncay OC. How dentists perceive
1. Hunter J. The natural history of the the effects of orthodontic extraction on
human teeth: explaining their structure, facial appearance. J Am Dent Assoc.
use, formation, growth, and diseases. 1995;126(6):769–72.
Vol. 1. R. Hardwicke; 1865. 13. Stephens CK, Boley JC, Behrents RG,
2. Brodie AG. Orthodontic history and what Alexander RG, Buschang PH. Long-term
it teaches. Angle Orthod. 1934;4(1):85– profile changes in extraction and
97. nonextraction patients. Am J Orthod
3. Davenport IB, MDS MD. The Dentofac Orthop. 2005;128(4):450–7.
Significance of the Natural Form and 14. Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Dandajena TC.
Arrangement of the Dental Arches of a Profile changes of patients treated with
Man, With a Consideration of the and without premolar extractions. Am J
Changes Which Occur as a Result of Orthod Dentofac Orthop.
Their Artificial Derangement by Filing 2007;132(3):324–31.
Or by the Extraction of Teeth. 15. Solem RC, Marasco R, Guiterrez-Pulido
Philadelphia:: SS White Dental L, Nielsen I, Kim S-H, Nelson G. Three-
Manufacturing Company; 1887. dimensional soft-tissue and hard-tissue
4. Wahl N. Orthodontics in 3 millennia. changes in the treatment of bimaxillary
Chapter 6: More early 20th-century protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac

RUAS 46
Journal of Dental & Oro-facial Research Vol 14. Issue 01 Jan. 2018 JDOR

Orthop. 2013;144(2):218–28. 26. Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Işıksal E. Relapse

16. Burrow SJ. To extract or not to extract: a of anterior crowding in patients treated
diagnostic decision, not a marketing with extraction and nonextraction of
decision. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofac
2008;133(3):341–2. Orthop. 2006;129(6):775–84.
17. Dorfman HS. Mucogingival changes 27. Cassetta M, Altieri F, Di Mambro A,
resulting from mandibular incisor tooth Galluccio G, Barbato E. Impaction of
movement. Am J Orthod. permanent mandibular second molar: A
1978;74(3):286–97. retrospective study. Med Oral Patol Oral
18. Yared KFG, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Cir Bucal. 2013;18(4):e564.
Periodontal status of mandibular central 28. Türköz Ç, Ulusoy Ç. Effect of premolar
incisors after orthodontic proclination in extraction on mandibular third molar
adults. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. impaction in young adults. Angle
2006;130(1):6-e1. Orthod. 2013;83(4):572–7.
19. Årtun J, Krogstad O. Periodontal status 29. Saysel MY, Meral GD, Kocadereli İ,
of mandibular incisors following Taşar F. The effects of first premolar
excessive proclination A study in adults extractions on third molar angulations.
with surgically treated mandibular Angle Orthod. 2005;75(5):719–22.
prognathism. Am J Orthod Dentofac 30. Sheridan JJ. Air-rotor stripping. J Clin
Orthop. 1987;91(3):225–32. Orthod JCO. 1985;19(1):43.
20. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor 31. Germec-Cakan D, Taner TU, Akan S.
positioning in the esthetic smile: The Arch-width and perimeter changes in
smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. patients with borderline Class I
2001;120(2):98–111. malocclusion treated with extractions or
21. Gianelly AA. Orthodontics, condylar without extractions with air-rotor
position, and TMJ status. Am J Orthod stripping. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop.
Dentofac Orthop. 1989;95(6):521–3. 2010;137(6):734-e1.
22. Gianelly AA, Anderson CK, Boffa J. 32. McNamara Jr JA, Sigler LM, Franchi L,
Longitudinal evaluation of condylar Guest SS, Baccetti T. Changes in
position in extraction and nonextraction occlusal relationships in mixed dentition
treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac patients treated with rapid maxillary
Orthop. 1991;100(5):416–20. expansion: A prospective clinical study.
23. Ioi H, Kang S, Shimomura T, Kim S, Angle Orthod. 2010;80(2):230–8.
Park S, Son W, et al. Effects of buccal 33. Housley JA, Nanda RS, Currier GF,
corridors on smile esthetics in Japanese McCune DE. Stability of transverse
and Korean orthodontists and expansion in the mandibular arch. Am J
orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Orthod Dentofac Orthop.
Dentofac Orthop. 2012;142(4):459–65. 2003;124(3):288–93.
24. Meyer AH, Woods MG, Manton DJ. 34. Fields Jr HW. Complex nonskeletal
Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor problems in preadolescent children:
changes with orthodontic treatment. Part Preventive and interceptive treatment.
1: differences between premolar Contemp Orthod. 2013;461.
extraction and nonextraction treatment 35. Chen SS-H, Greenlee GM, Kim J-E,
outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review
Orthop. 2014;145(2):207–16. of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod
25. Bowman SJ. More than lip service: facial Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137(6):726-e1.
esthetics in orthodontics. J Am Dent 36. Marshall SD, Currier GF, Hatch NE,
Assoc. 1999;130(8):1173–81. Huang GJ, Nah H-D, Owens SE, et al.

RUAS 47
Journal of Dental & Oro-facial Research Vol 14. Issue 01 Jan. 2018 JDOR

Self-ligating bracket claims. Am J

Orthod Dentofac Orthop.
2010;138(2):128–31.
37. Sonis A, Ackerman M. E-space
preservation: Is there a relationship to
mandibular second molar impaction?
Angle Orthod. 2011;81(6):1045–9.
38. Rubin RL, Baccetti T, McNamara JA.
Mandibular second molar eruption
difficulties related to the maintenance of
arch perimeter in the mixed dentition.
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop.
2012;141(2):146–52.
39. Forrest JL. Evidence-based decision
making: a translational guide for dental
professionals. Wolters Kluwer
Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;
2009.
40. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Sarver DM.
Contemporary orthodontics. Elsevier
Health Sciences; 2006.

RUAS 48