Thanks for your interest in our article. In it, we described the prevalence of crowding, developing of the occlusion, diagnosis of crowding and treatment alternatives. These discussions were aimed at the generalist, who we believe should be aware, at a minimum, of overall treatment approaches. In planning and writing this article, we believed that the details of specific unique approaches related to extraction or nonextraction were beyond its purview.
You point out that extraction of second permanent molars can offer an alternative to extraction and premolar extraction regimens. We agree. In selected cases, removal of second molars and replacement by third molars can be effective. The advantages and disadvantages must be weighed by the practitioner when planning care. Likewise, we did not discuss extraction of second premolars, lower single or multiple incisors, or maxillary lateral incisors. All these approaches can be used with good results in selected cases when the advantages and disadvantages are recognized. In fact, given the prevalence of missing teeth, these approaches are built into or accommodated by treatment plans in lieu of planned extractions probably more often than second molar extraction.
In summary, we acknowledge that numerous extraction approaches can be valuable. Our missions were studied and deliberate, but not intended to be disparaging.
