Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Jianru Yi, Meile Li, Yu Li, Xiaobing Li, Zhihe Zhao

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the external apical root resorption (EARR) in patients receiving fixed orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets.

Methods

Studies comparing the EARR between orthodontic patients using self-ligating or conventional brackets were identified through electronic search in databases including CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and SIGLE, and manual search in relevant journals and reference lists of the included studies until Apr 2016. The extraction of data and risk of bias evaluation were conducted by two investigators independently. The original outcome underwent statistical pooling by using Review Manager 5.

Results

Seven studies were included in the systematic review, out of which, five studies were statistically pooled in meta-analysis. The value of EARR of maxillary central incisors in the self-ligating bracket group was significantly lower than that in the conventional bracket group (SMD −0.31; 95% CI: −0.60–−0.01). No significant differences in other incisors were observed between self−ligating and conventional brackets.

Conclusions

Current evidences suggest self-ligating brackets do not outperform conventional brackets in reducing the EARR in maxillary lateral incisors, mandible central incisors and mandible lateral incisors. However, self-ligating brackets appear to have an advantage in protecting maxillary central incisor from EARR, which still needs to be confirmed by more high-quality studies.
Literature
1.
Artun J, Smale I, Behbehani F, Doppel D, Van’t Hof M, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Apical root resorption six and 12 months after initiation of fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:919–26.PubMed
2.
3.
Hellsing E, Hammarstrom L. The hyaline zone and associated root surface changes in experimental orthodontics in rats: a light and scanning electron microscope study. Eur J Orthod. 1996;18:11–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Brezniak N, Wasserstein A. Orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption. Part I: The basic science aspects. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:175–9.PubMed
5.
Janson GR, De Luca CG, Martins DR, Henriques JF, De Freitas MR. A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with 3 different fixed appliance techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118:262–73.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Roscoe MG, Meira JB, Cattaneo PM. Association of orthodontic force system and root resorption: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147:610–26.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chan E, Darendeliler MA. 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. 2005;127:186–95.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Weiland F. Constant versus dissipating forces in orthodontics: the effect on initial tooth movement and root resorption. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25:335–42.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:575–84.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Pringle AM, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ, McKnight M. Prospective randomized clinical trial to compare pain levels associated with 2 orthodontic fixed bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:160–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.
13.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Saltaji H, Major MP, Altalibi M, Youssef M, Flores-Mir C. Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate patients. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:1115–22.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Wu F, Weng S, Li C, Sun J, Li L, Gao Q. Submandibular gland transfer for the prevention of postradiation xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2015;77:70–86.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Leite V, Conti AC, Navarro R, Almeida M, Oltramari-Navarro P, Almeida R. Comparison of root resorption between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:1078–82.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Liu XQ, Sun XL, Yang Q, Fan CH, Chen XJ. Comparative study on the apical root resorption between self-ligating and conventional brackets in extraction patients. Shanghai J Stomatol. 2012;21:460–5.
19.
Chen W, Haq AA, Zhou Y. Root resorption of self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets in severe anterior crowding Class I patients: a longitudinal retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Blake M, Woodside DG, Pharoah MJ. A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with the edgewise and Speed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108:76–84.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:470. e1-8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Pandis N, Nasika M, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:646–51.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Jacobs C, Gebhardt PF, Jacobs V, Hechtner M, Meila D, Wehrbein H. Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Head Face Med. 2014;10:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Tieu LD, Saltaji H, Normando D, Flores-Mir C. Radiologically determined orthodontically induced external apical root resorption in incisors after non-surgical orthodontic treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Kim DY, Lim BS, Baek SH. Frictional property comparisons of conventional and self-ligating lingual brackets according to tooth displacement during initial leveling and alignment: an in vitro mechanical study. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46:87–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Hiroce M, Fernandes DJ, Elias CN, Miguel JA. Sliding resistance of polycarbonate self-ligating brackets and stainless steel esthetic archwires. Prog Orthod. 2012;13:148–53.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Katona TR. Flaws in root resorption assessment algorithms: role of tooth shape. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:698. e19-27.CrossRefPubMed
28.
D’Addazio PS, Campos CN, Ozcan M, Teixeira HG, Passoni RM, Carvalho AC. A comparative study between cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs in the diagnosis of simulated endodontic complications. Int Endod J. 2011;44:218–24.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Signorelli L, Patcas R, Peltomaki T, Schatzle M. Radiation dose of cone-beam computed tomography compared to conventional radiographs in orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop. 2016;77:9–15.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Jianru Yi
Meile Li
Yu Li
Xiaobing Li
Zhihe Zhao
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0320-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Oral Health 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

The early childhood oral health program: a qualitative study of the perceptions of child and family health nurses in South Western Sydney, Australia

Research article

Brazilian immigrants’ oral health literacy and participation in oral health care in Canada

Research article

Effect of a school-based oral health education in preventing untreated dental caries and increasing knowledge, attitude, and practices among adolescents in Bangladesh

Research article

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Human cathelicidin LL-37 enhance the antibiofilm effect of EGCG on Streptococcus mutans

Research article

Smoking status, dental visits and receipt of tobacco counseling in dental office among mobile and trailer home adolescents

Research article

Dental age assessment in 6- to 14-year old German children: comparison of Cameriere and Demirjian methods