Tingting Mai1, Xiaoju Guan2, Xiaohong Li3. 1. Department of Stomatology, Haikou Longhua Mai Tingting Dental Clinic Haikou 570105, Hainan, China. 2. Department of Stomatology, Tianjin Women and Children Health Center Tianjin 300000, China. 3. Department of Stomatology, Haikou Third People's Hospital Haikou 570105, Hainan, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences in the amount of dental root resorption (DRR) measured using different orthodontic techniques in the orthodontic treatment of patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns. METHODS:Ninety-three patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were randomly divided into group A (n=46) and group B (n=47). Group A was treated with bracketless invisible orthodontics and group B was treated using the self-ligating fixed orthodontic technique. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to measure the amount of DRR in the patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns receiving the orthodontic treatment. RESULTS: After the treatment, the amounts of DRR in the maxillary and mandibular canines in both groups were lower than they were in the other 4 tooth positions (P < 0.05). The amount of DRR in the maxillary and mandibular canines in the patients with skeletal class I in both groups was lower than it was at the other four tooth positions (P < 0.05). The amount of DRR in the maxillary central incisors and maxillary canines in the patients with skeletal class II in group A was higher than it was in group B, but the amount of DRR in the mandibular canines in group A was lower than it was in group B (P < 0.05). The amounts of DRR at the six tooth positions in the patients with skeletal class III in group A were higher than the amounts in group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: DRR occurs in patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns undergoing the two orthodontic techniques in the orthodontic treatment, but there are differences in the amount of DRR among the patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns receiving the orthodontic treatment. Clinically, the orthodontic method should be selected based on the type of patient. AJTR
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences in the amount of dental root resorption (DRR) measured using different orthodontic techniques in the orthodontic treatment of patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns. METHODS: Ninety-three patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were randomly divided into group A (n=46) and group B (n=47). Group A was treated with bracketless invisible orthodontics and group B was treated using the self-ligating fixed orthodontic technique. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to measure the amount of DRR in the patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns receiving the orthodontic treatment. RESULTS: After the treatment, the amounts of DRR in the maxillary and mandibular canines in both groups were lower than they were in the other 4 tooth positions (P < 0.05). The amount of DRR in the maxillary and mandibular canines in the patients with skeletal class I in both groups was lower than it was at the other four tooth positions (P < 0.05). The amount of DRR in the maxillary central incisors and maxillary canines in the patients with skeletal class II in group A was higher than it was in group B, but the amount of DRR in the mandibular canines in group A was lower than it was in group B (P < 0.05). The amounts of DRR at the six tooth positions in the patients with skeletal class III in group A were higher than the amounts in group B (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: DRR occurs in patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns undergoing the two orthodontic techniques in the orthodontic treatment, but there are differences in the amount of DRR among the patients with different sagittal skeletal patterns receiving the orthodontic treatment. Clinically, the orthodontic method should be selected based on the type of patient. AJTR
Authors: Maria Giovanna Gandolfi; Gabriela Ciapetti; Paola Taddei; Francesca Perut; Anna Tinti; Marcio Vivan Cardoso; Bart Van Meerbeek; Carlo Prati Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2010-07-23 Impact factor: 5.304