Comparative study of root resorption between two methods for accelerated orthodontic tooth movement

  • Ahmed Ragab Elkalza Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt.
  • Ahmed Shawkat Hashem Faculty of Dentistry, Damanhour University, Egypt. Jouf University, Sakaka, Aljouf,
  • Mohammad Khursheed Alam Jouf University, Sakaka, Aljouf, Saudi Arabia.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2018.086

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess apical root resorption (RR) following the application of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and piezocision (PzC) assisted orthodontics for the acceleration of tooth movement (TM). Materials and Methods: A total number of 16 patients seeking orthodontic therapy were included in this study. All patients had undergone 1st premolars extraction and were indicated for canine retraction. These patients were divided into two groups; one was treated using MOP in one side while the other side served as control. In the other group PzC was performed in one side with no intervention done on the other side. Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained for every patient before and after canine retraction in order to evaluate amount of RR. Results: In the MOP group, there was no significant difference in canine root length between experimental and control sides. Whereas, in the PzC group, there was a statistically significant decrease in root length in the experimental side compared with the control side. When comparing both groups, the experimental PzC side showed a statistically significant decrease in root length compared to experimental MOP side postoperatively. Conclusion: Experimental PzC showed statistically significant decreases in canine root length compared to both experimental MOP and control side after canine retraction.


 


 

References

1. Killiany DM. Root resorption caused by orthodontic treatment: an evidence-based review of literature. Semin Orthod. 1999;5(2):128–33.
2. Owman-Moll P, Kurol J, Lundgren D. Continuous versus interrupted continuous orthodontic force related to early tooth movement and root resorption. Angle Orthod. 1995;65(6):395–401.
3. Sameshima GT, Asgarifar KO. Assessment of root resorption and root shape: periapical versus panoramic films. Angle Orthod. 2001;71(3):185–9.
4. Acar A, Canyürek U, Kocaaga M, Erverdi N. Continuous versus discontinuous force application and root resorption. Angle Orthod. 1999;69(2):159–63.
5. Abuabara A. Biomechanical aspects of external root resorption in orthodontic therapy. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007;12(8):E610–3.
6. Topkara A. External apical root resorption caused by orthodontic treatment: a review of the literature. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2011;12(3):163–6.
7. Aylikci O, Sakin C. Piezocision-assisted canine distalization. J Orthod Res. 2013;1:70–6.
8. Keser EI, Dibart S. Sequential piezocision: a novel approach to accelerated orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(6):879–89.
9. Alikhani M, Raptis M, Zoldan B, Sangsuwon C, Lee YB, Alyami B, Corpodian C, Barrera LM, Alansari S, Khoo E, Teixeira C. Effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(5):963–48.
10. Hoogeveen EJ, Jansma J, Ren Y. Surgically facilitated orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(4 Suppl):S51–64.
11. Alikhani M, Alansari S, Sangsuwon C, Alikhani S, Chou MY, Alyami B, Nervina JM, Teixeira CC. Micro-osteoperforations: Minimally invasive accelerated tooth movement. Semin Orthod. 2015;21:162–9.
12. Sherrard JF, Rossouw PE, Benson BW, Carrillo R, Buschang PH. Accuracy and reliability of tooth and root lengths measured on cone-beam computed tomographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(4 Suppl):S100–8.
13. Jiang F, Chen J, Kula K, Gu H, Du Y, Eckert G. Root resorptions associated with canine retraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;152(3):348–54.
14. Katona TR. The flaws in tooth root resorption assessment algorithms: the role of source position. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2007;36(6):311–6.
15. Xia Z, Chen J, Jiangc F, Li S, Viecilli RF, Liu SY. Load system of segmental T-loops for canine retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(4):548–56.
16. Patterson BM, Dalci O, Papadopoulou AK, Madukuri S, Mahon J, Petocz P, Spahr A, Darendeliler MA. Effect of piezocision on root resorption associated with orthodontic force: A microcomputed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(1):53–62.
17. Makedonas D, Lund H, Hansen K. Root resorption diagnosed with cone beam computed tomography after 6 months and at the end of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(3):389–93.
Published
2018-12-19
How to Cite
ELKALZA, Ahmed Ragab; HASHEM, Ahmed Shawkat; ALAM, Mohammad Khursheed. Comparative study of root resorption between two methods for accelerated orthodontic tooth movement. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 9, p. 348-353, dec. 2018. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <https://joralres.com/index.php/JOralRes/article/view/joralres.2018.086>. Date accessed: 24 apr. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2018.086.
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol 7 No 9
Section
Articles

Keywords

root resorption, micro-osteoperforation, piezocision, canine retraction, Cone-beam Computed Tomography. Reabsorción radicular, micro-osteoperforación, piezocisión, retracción canina, tomografía computarizada de haz cónico

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. © 2024.