Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-05-2018 | Original Article

Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets

A cone-beam computed tomography study

Authors: Dr. Isil Aras, Idil Unal, Gencer Huniler, Aynur Aras

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 3/2018

Abstract

Objectives

Purpose of the present study was to compare external root resorption (ERR) volumetrically in maxillary incisors induced by orthodontic treatment using self-ligating brackets (Damon Q, DQ) or conventional brackets (Titanium Orthos, TO) with the help of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Patients and methods

A sample of 32 subjects, with Angle Class I malocclusion and anterior crowding of 4–10 mm, was divided randomly into two groups: a DQ group, in which self-ligating DQ brackets with Damon archwires were used; and a TO group, in which conventional TO brackets with large Orthos archwires were applied. The study was conducted using CBCT scans taken before (T1), and near the end (9 months after the initiation of treatment; T2) of the orthodontic treatment. The extent of ERR was determined volumetrically using Mimics software. Changes in root volume were evaluated by repeated-measures analysis of variance as well as by paired and independent t-tests.

Results

While significant differences were found between T1 and T2 for root volume in both groups (p < 0.05), there was no difference between the groups regarding the amount (mm³ or relative change) of ERR (p > 0.05). Maxillary central and lateral incisors showed similar volume loss (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the TO group showed a higher prevalence of palatinal and proximal slanted RR compared with the DQ group (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

It is not possible to suggest superiority of one bracket system over the other only considering root resorption pattern or amount. Higher incidence of slanted RR found in patients treated with the TO system warrants further research to identify possible specific causes.

Apajalahti S, Peltola JS (2007) Apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment—a retrospective study. Eur J Orthod 29:408–412CrossRefPubMed

Archambault A, Lacoursiere R, Badawi HM, Major PW, Carey J, Flores-Mir C (2010) Torque expression in stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 80:201–210CrossRefPubMed

Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JPR, Heo G, Major PW (2008) Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:721–728CrossRefPubMed

Bartley N, Turk T, Colak C, Elekdağ-Türk S, Jones A, Petocz P et al (2011) Physical properties of root cementum: part 17. Root resorption after the application of 2.5o and 15o of buccal root torque for 4 weeks: a microcomputed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:e353–e360CrossRefPubMed

Blake M, Woodside DG, Pharoah MJ (1995) A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with the edgewise and speed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 108:76–84CrossRefPubMed

Brezniak N, Goren S, Zoizner R, Dinbar A, Arad A, Wasserstein A, Heller M (2004) A comparison of three methods to accurately measure root length. Angle Orthod 74:786–791PubMed

Brezniak N, Wasserstein A (1993) Root resorption after orthodontic treatment: part 1. Literature review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:62–66CrossRefPubMed

Chan E, Darendeliler MA (2005) Physical properties of root cementum: Part 5. Volumetric analysis of root resorption craters after application of light and heavy orthodontic forces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 127:186–195CrossRefPubMed

Dalstra M, Eriksen H, Bergamini C, Melsen B (2015) Actual versus theoretical torsional play in conventional and self-ligating bracket systems. J Orthod 42:103–113CrossRefPubMed

10.

Dudic A, Giannopoulou C, Leuzinger M, Kiliaridis S (2009) Detection of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment by using panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography of super-high resolution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:434–437CrossRefPubMed

11.

Durack C, Patel S, Davies J, Wilson R, Mannocci F (2011) Diagnostic accuracy of small volume cone beam computed tomography and intraoral periapical radiography for the detection of simulated external inflammatory root resorption. Int Endod J 44:136–147CrossRefPubMed

12.

Fleming PS, Lee RT, Marinho V, Johal A (2013) Comparison of maxillary arch dimensional changes with passive and active self-ligating and conventional brackets in the permanent dentition: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:185–193CrossRefPubMed

13.

Huang Y, Keilig L, Rahimi A, Reimann S, Bourauel C (2012) Torque capabilities of self-ligating and conventional brackets under the effect of bracket width and free wire length. Orthod Craniofac Res 15:255–262CrossRefPubMed

14.

Jacobs C, Gebhardt PF, Jacobs V, Hechtner M, Meila D, Wehrbein H (2014) Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Head Face Med 10:2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Katona TR (2006) Flaws in root resorption assessment algorithms: role of tooth shape. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130(698):e19–e27

16.

Katsikogianni EN, Reimann S, Weber A, Karp J, Bourauel C (2015) A comparative experimental investigation of torque capabilities induced by conventional and active, passive self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 37:440–446CrossRefPubMed

17.

King AD, Turk T, Colak C, Elekdağ-Türk S, Jones A, Petocz P et al (2011) Physical properties of root cementum: part 21. Extent of root resorption after the application of 2.5o and 15o tips for 4 weeks: a microcomputed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 140:e299–e305CrossRefPubMed

18.

Leite V, Conti AC, Navarro R, Almeida M, Oltramari-Navarro P, Almeida R (2012) Comparison of root resorption between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 82:1078–1082CrossRefPubMed

19.

Linge L, Linge BO (1991) Patient characteristics and treatment variables associated with apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 99:35–43CrossRefPubMed

20.

Lund H, Gröndahl K, Hansen K, Gröndahl HG (2012) Apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment. A prospective study using cone beam CT. Angle Orthod 82:480–487CrossRefPubMed

21.

Maret D, Molinier F, Braga J et al (2010) Accuracy of 3D reconstructions based on cone beam computer tomography. J Dent Res 89:1465–1469CrossRefPubMed

22.

McFadden WM, Engstrom C, Engstrom H, Anholm JM (1989) A study of the relationship incisor intrusion and root shortening. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 96:390–396CrossRefPubMed

23.

Melenka GW, Lacoursiere RA, Carey JP, Nobes DS, Heo G, Major PW (2014) Comparison of deformation and torque expression of the orthos and orthos Ti bracket systems. Eur J Orthod 36:381–388CrossRefPubMed

24.

Pandis N, Nasika M, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T (2008) External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:646–651CrossRefPubMed

25.

Patel S, Dawood A, Wilson R, Horner K, Mannocci F (2009) The detection and management of root resorption lesions using intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography—an in vivo investigation. Int Endod J 42:831–838CrossRefPubMed

26.

Roscoe MG, Meira JBC, Cattaneo PM (2015) Association of orthodontic force system and root resorption: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 147:610–626CrossRefPubMed

27.

Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT (2008) Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134(470):e471–e478

28.

Wang Y, He S, Yu L, Li J, Chen S (2011) Accuracy of volumetric measurement of teeth in vivo based on cone beam computer tomography. Orthod Craniofac Res 14:206–212CrossRefPubMed

29.

Weltman B, Vig KW, Fields HW, Shanker S, Kaizar EE (2010) Root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:462–476CrossRefPubMed

30.

Wu ATJ, Turk T, Colak C, Elekdağ-Türk S, Jones A, Petocz P et al (2011) Physical properties of root cementum: part 18. Extent of root resorption after the application of light and heavy controlled rotational orthodontic forces for 4 weeks: a microcomputed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:e495–503CrossRefPubMed

Title: Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets
A cone-beam computed tomography study
Authors: Dr. Isil Aras
Idil Unal
Gencer Huniler
Aynur Aras
Publication date: 01-05-2018
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-018-0133-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets

A cone-beam computed tomography study

Abstract

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Influence of tooth position on wind instrumentalists’ performance and embouchure comfort

Influence of geometric design characteristics on primary stability of orthodontic miniscrews

Is there an optimal initial amount of activation for midpalatal suture expansion?

Short-term dentoskeletal changes following Class II treatment using a fixed functional appliance: the Austro Repositioner

Mitteilungen DGKFO

Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination