Comparison of root resorption between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography

Leite, V. V.; Conti, Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira; Navarro, Ricardo de Lima; Almeida, Márcio Rodrigues de; Oltramari-Navarro, Paula Vanessa Pedron; Almeida, Renato Teixeira

doi:10.2319/080911-501.1

Cited by 52 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The full-texts of the reserved ten studies were retrieved and assessed referring to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, seven studies [17–23] fulfilled the criteria and were included in present systematic review, five of which [17–21] were pooled for meta-analysis. A flow diagram of the study selection process was demonstrated in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Liu

et al. 2016

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsStudies 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.ResultsSeven 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.ConclusionsCurrent 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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Liu

et al. 2016

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…38 A previous investigation of OIIRR differences between two bracket systems adopted a difference of 0.4 mm as being clinically significant to calculate sample size. 42 A post-hoc power calculation after code breaking for the secondary outcome of OIIRR, using the above mentioned difference, a root mean squared error incorporating the variance of the OIIRR from the present trial and a 5% level of significance indicated that the present trial would have a power of 25-30%.…”

Section: Sample Size Calculationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Effect of supplemental vibrational force on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption: A multicenter randomized clinical trial

DiBiase

Woodhouse

Papageorgiou

et al. 2016

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION A multicenter parallel 3-arm randomized clinical trial was carried out in 1 university and 2 district hospitals in the United Kingdom to investigate the effect of supplemental vibrational force on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) during the alignment phase of fixed appliance therapy. METHODS Eighty-one subjects less than 20 years old with mandibular incisor irregularity undergoing extraction-based fixed-appliance treatment were randomly allocated to supplementary (20 minutes a day) use of an intraoral vibrational device (AcceleDent; OrthoAccel Technologies, Houston, Tex) (n = 29), an identical nonfunctional (sham) device (n = 25), or fixed appliances only (n = 27). OIIRR was measured blindly from long-cone periapical radiographs of the maxillary right central incisor taken at the start of treatment and the end of alignment when a 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel archwire was placed (mean follow-up, 201.6 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 188.6-214.6 days). Data were analyzed blindly on a per-protocol basis because losses to follow-up were minimal, with descriptive statistics, 1-way analysis of variance, and univariable and multivariable regression modeling. RESULTS Nine patients were excluded from the analysis; they were evenly distributed across the groups. Mean overall OIIRR measured among the 72 patients was 1.08 mm (95% CI, 0.89-1.27 mm). Multivariable regression indicated no significant difference in OIIRR for the AcceleDent (difference, 0.22 mm; 95% CI, -0.14-0.72; P = 0.184) and AcceleDent sham groups (difference, 0.29 mm; 95% CI, -0.15-0.99; P = 0.147) compared with the fixed-appliance-only group, after accounting for patient sex, age, malocclusion, extraction pattern, alignment time, maximum pain experienced, history of dentoalveolar trauma, and initial root length of the maxillary right central incisor. No other side-effects were recorded apart from pain and OIIRR. CONCLUSIONS The use of supplemental vibrational force during the alignment phase of fixed appliance orthodontic treatment does not affect OIIRR associated with the maxillary central incisor. REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02314975). PROTOCOL The protocol was not published before trial commencement. FUNDING Functional and sham AcceleDent units were donated by the manufacturer; there was no contribution to the conduct or the writing of this study.

show abstract

“…-randomized trials have been done but there are too few 14,24,29,38 ; -samplings are low 24,29,36 ; -systematic reviews and metaanalyses only allow us to assess a few high caliber articles 16,30 . In addition, it is important to note that most of the studies were carried out with just a few bracket models even though there are many different brands: Smart Clip TM (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) 4 …”

Section: Discussion On the Selected Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are self-ligating brackets an advantageous alternative for non-extraction treatments?

Gebeile-Chauty¹

2014

J Dentofacial Anom Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this nonsystematic review of the literature is to determine whether or not self-ligating brackets are an equally effective alternative to traditional brackets for non-extraction treatments. The agreed upon criteria are indications for extractions, the biomechanical approach, the stability of the treatment results, the iatrogenic effects and the ergonomics.The studies discuss arch expansion with the use of self-ligating brackets. One study mentions a lack of control of osseous management including tipping and buccal bone thickness in the lateral sectors. The mandibular incisor inclination that was obtained does not appear to be correlated to the type of bracket but rather to initial factors specific to the patient. We didn't find any study dealing with the long-term stability of the results.Regarding patients, self-ligating brackets do not reduce the pain, the number of extractions, the incidence of resorption or the risk for caries.Self-ligating brackets shortened the clinical time for an experienced practitioner but not the length of the time of comprehensive treatment and alignment. Some studies report an increase in cases of emergency. Finally, these brackets are more difficult to position.

show abstract

Comparison of root resorption between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography

Abstract: Although EARR has occurred in all teeth evaluated, the bracket design (self-ligating or conventional) did not demonstrate any influence on the results observed.

Cited by 52 publications

References 28 publications

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

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

Effect of supplemental vibrational force on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption: A multicenter randomized clinical trial

Are self-ligating brackets an advantageous alternative for non-extraction treatments?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About