[The extraction-non extraction dilemma: a case in the border]

The extraction-non extraction dilemma is a classic one in the history of orthodontics [2, 19, 30]. In some cases the decision seems to be very clear whereas in some others discrepancies among clinicians can easily be found. Different authors propose different protocols in order to decide whether extractions are necessary in a particular clinical situation. In the last 25 years, the debate has been reframed with new non-extractionists trends based on new treatment philosophies or mechanics. In this new scenario, it seems pertinent to redefine the classic and new protocols with a critical perspective in order to find a potential consensus on the parameters that set up the indication for extractions in orthodontics.

The decision to extract is obviously different in Class I, Class II or Class III malocclusions. In Class II or Class III cases, extractions may be indicated in order to correct the Class II cuspid, the overjet or the anterior crossbite, for instance, independently of other factors. In this article, a borderline Class I case is presented, where parameters such as the crowding, craniofacial typology, facial esthetics, occlusal pattern and periodontal status are taken into consideration in order to make the decision to extract.

The different treatment options are discussed and the potential advantages and disadvantages analyzed. The outcomes of the treatment option finally selected are critically described and debated. However, borderline cases allow for further reflection and, maybe, different proposals or strategies. So, the discussion is open: be my guest.