Literature DB >> 18249288

Physical properties of root cementum: Part 10. Comparison of the effects of invisible removable thermoplastic appliances with light and heavy orthodontic forces on premolar cementum. A microcomputed-tomography study.

Laura J Barbagallo1, Allan S Jones, Peter Petocz, M Ali Darendeliler.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Orthodontic treatment with clear sequential removable thermoplastic appliances (TAs) is gaining popularity as an alternative to treatment with fixed appliances. The amount of orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption generated by such appliances has not been investigated. In this prospective randomized clinical trial, we used x-ray microtomography to quantify resorption generated by treatment with ClearSmile appliances (ClearSmile, Woollongong, Australia) and compared the effects with those of heavy and light conventional orthodontic forces and no force.
METHODS: The sample consisted of 54 maxillary first premolars in 27 patients who required bilateral extractions as part of their planned orthodontic treatment. The subjects were randomly assigned to 3 groups, each with 9 subjects. A split-mouth design was used, and forces were applied to the first premolars. In group 1, TAs were used to move teeth on 1 side in a buccal direction at a rate of 0.5 mm every 2 weeks (TA movement); the contralateral teeth were not moved and served at controls. In group 2, TA movement was used on 1 side. A buccal force of 225 g from a beta-titanium alloy cantilever spring (heavy force) was used on the contralateral side. In group 3, TA movement was used on 1 side. A buccal force of 25 g from a cantilever spring (light force) was used on the contralateral side. The treatment duration was 8 weeks (56 days +/- 1 day). The TAs were changed every 14 days, and each patient used 4 appliances. The springs were not reactivated. At the end of the study period, the teeth were extracted according to a strict protocol to prevent root damage. Resorption was measured with an x-ray microtomograph (1072, SkyScan, Aartselaar, Belgium). Software analysis determined quantity, location, and distribution of root resorption craters.
RESULTS: The control teeth had the least amount of resorption. The light-force teeth had approximately 5 times more resorption than the control teeth (P <.001). The TA teeth had similar but slightly greater resorption than the light-force teeth, or approximately 6 times greater than the control teeth (P <.001). The heavy-force teeth had the most resporption, about 9 times greater than the controls (P <.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Clear removable TAs have similar effects on root cementum as light (25 g) orthodontic forces with fixed appliances.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18249288     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  20 in total

1.  Forces and moments delivered by PET-G aligners to an upper central incisor for labial and palatal translation.

Authors:  Fayez Elkholy; Thanapon Panchaphongsaphak; Fatih Kilic; Falko Schmidt; Bernd G Lapatki
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Comparison of orthodontic root resorption of root-filled and vital teeth using micro-computed tomography.

Authors:  Kadir Kolcuoğlu; Aslihan Zeynep Oz
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Mechanical environment for lower canine T-loop retraction compared to en-masse space closure with a power-arm attached to either the canine bracket or the archwire.

Authors:  Feifei Jiang; W Eugene Roberts; Yanzhi Liu; Abbas Shafiee; Jie Chen
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Influence of different types of rapid maxillary expansion on root resorption: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kai Xia; Wen-Tian Sun; Li-Yuan Yu; Jun Liu
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2021-02-01

Review 5.  Root Resorption in Orthodontics.

Authors:  Furkan Dindaroğlu; Servet Doğan
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2016-12-01

6.  Accuracy of torque-limiting devices for mini-implant removal: an in vitro study.

Authors:  A Pauls; M Nienkemper; D Drescher
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 1.938

7.  External apical root resorption after nonextraction orthodontic treatment with labial vs. lingual fixed appliances.

Authors:  Hande Pamukçu; Ömür Polat-Özsoy; Ayşe Gülşahi; Mehmet Özgür Özemre
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 1.938

8.  Mechanical environment change in root, periodontal ligament, and alveolar bone in response to two canine retraction treatment strategies.

Authors:  F Jiang; Z Xia; S Li; G Eckert; J Chen
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.826

9.  The influence of occlusal forces on force delivery properties of aligners during rotation of an upper central incisor.

Authors:  Wolfram Hahn; Benjamin Engelke; Klaus Jung; Henning Dathe; Franz-Joseph Kramer; Tina Rödig; Dietmar Kubein-Meesenburg; Rudolf M Gruber
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Initial forces and moments delivered by removable thermoplastic appliances during rotation of an upper central incisor.

Authors:  Wolfram Hahn; Benjamin Engelke; Klaus Jung; Henning Dathe; Julia Fialka-Fricke; Dietmar Kubein-Meesenburg; Reza Sadat-Khonsari
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.