Root resorption of maxillary incisors retracted with and without skeletal anchorage

Barros, Sérgio Estelita; Janson, Guilherme; Chiqueto, Kelly; Baldo, Vitor Oliveira; Baldo, Taiana Oliveira

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.048

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A prospective study comparing RR with and without skeletal anchorage warranted its use in patients requiring maximum retraction. 16 However, on assessing their classification into slight-to-moderate and severeto-extreme RR, a significantly higher percentage of patients treated with skeletal anchorage experienced severe to extreme RR (47%)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the conclusions derived from the current study present a higher level of evidence that may be applicable clinically. A prospective study comparing RR with and without skeletal anchorage warranted its use in patients requiring maximum retraction 16 . However, on assessing their classification into slight‐to‐moderate and severe‐to‐extreme RR, a significantly higher percentage of patients treated with skeletal anchorage experienced severe to extreme RR (47%) when compared to patients treated with conventional anchorage (18%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13,14 Skeletal anchorage is indicated in clinical scenarios requiring extensive retraction of maxillary incisors as commonly observed in bidental proclination. 15,16 Anchorage strain on molars is reduced and force vector application can be modified based on treatment needs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Three‐dimensional volumetric evaluation of root resorption in maxillary anteriors following en‐masse retraction with varying force vectors – a randomized control trial

Arvind

Navaneethan

Subramanian

et al. 2023

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRoot resorption in orthodontics is associated with direction and magnitude of force application as primary etiological factors. Well‐controlled trials that utilize three‐dimensional segmentation to detect volumetric changes in tooth structure are required to assess the quantitative nature of root resorption.ObjectiveTo assess the severity of root resorption (RR) during retraction of maxillary anteriors with three different force vectors (with and without skeletal anchorage) via cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) superimpositions.Trial DesignThree‐arm parallel randomized clinical trial (RCT).Materials and MethodsForty‐two (16 males, 26 females) patients, (17–28 years), in permanent dentition with bimaxillary protrusion were randomly allocated to three groups of 14 patients each using block randomization (1:1:1 ratio) and allocation concealment. En‐masse anterior retraction post first premolar extractions was carried out with modified force vectors in the three groups based on anchorage type [Molar, Mini‐implant and Infrazygomatic crest (IZC) bone screws]. Volumetric root loss and linear dimensional changes were blindly assessed on initial (T0) and final (T1, end of space closure) CBCT scans. Normality distribution of values was done using Shapiro–Wilk's test. ANOVA and Post‐hoc Tukey HSD test were done to compare measurements between groups at significance levels (P < .05).ResultsForty patients were analysed (14, 14, and 12 in three groups). Significant volumetric loss was noted in all groups. Central incisors demonstrated a significant reduction in IZC group (81.5 ± 21.1 mm3) compared to conventional (50.1 ± 26.5 mm3) and mini‐implant groups (76.1 ± 27.6 mm3). Canines demonstrated a significant reduction in mini‐implant group (108.9 ± 33.9 mm3) compared to conventional (68.8 ± 42.5 mm3) and IZC groups (103.1 ± 29.1 mm3). Regarding linear parameters, central incisors and canines revealed significant root length reduction in both skeletal anchorage groups. Lateral incisors showed no significant changes between groups.ConclusionsIntrusive force vectors generated during skeletally anchored retraction can predispose anteriors to an increased risk of resorption. Greater loss of root volume was noted in the centrals and canines when retracted with skeletal anchorage.LimitationsSmall sample size and variations during CBCT acquisition.HarmsLow‐dose CBCT scans were taken at T0 and T1 treatment intervals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three‐dimensional volumetric evaluation of root resorption in maxillary anteriors following en‐masse retraction with varying force vectors – a randomized control trial

Arvind

Navaneethan

Subramanian

et al. 2023

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar finding was found in other studies. 13,17 Few studies 17,19,20 found that the maxillary central incisors were the most resorbed, with 27% undergoing greater than 1 mm of root resorption and premolars and canines were relatively unaffected. Proximity between the roots of maxillary central incisors and the cortical bone of the socket, the incisive canal and the alveolar bone on the buccal surface, combined with the type of movement may explain the higher incidence of severe root resorption these teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of root resorption after orthodontic treatment: A clinical study of contributory factors

Kaur¹,

Shetty²,

Sharma³

et al. 2020

JDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the contributory factors of external apical root resorption. Materials and Methods: Sixty subjects who had undergone complete orthodontic treatment were selected. The difference of the root length between pre and post-treatment was measured. The degree of root resorption was scored according to the index proposed by Levander and Malmgren. 1 The mean root resorption score (MRRS) was calculated. Mann Whitney test was done to compare the groups. Pearson correlation was applied. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in root resorption among males and females. Tooth extraction was correlated with MRRS. Except for upper posterior teeth, the duration of treatment was positively correlated with MRRS. For overjet, there was a positive correlation between upper and lower anterior teeth and MRRS. Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment should be carefully performed in patients who need extraction, great retraction of maxillary incisors and prolonged therapy.

show abstract

“…However, the application of these devices may depend on patient cooperation, cause discomfort and other problems, and produces limited efect [2,3]. Miniscrew implants are considered to achieve maximum anchorage control [4], but the risks of fracture, expulsion, damage to adjacent tissues, and root and alveolar bone absorption have been reported [5][6][7], which are also expensive. Terefore, methods to safely, comfortably, simply, and efectively enhance anchorage are urgently needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Finite Element Study of the Physiological Anchorage Control Concept on Anchorage Molars in Lingual Orthodontics

Zhao

et al. 2022

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To study the effect of the physiological anchorage control concept on anchorage molars in lingual and labial orthodontic techniques. Methods. Three-dimensional finite element models, including the right maxillary first molar, periodontal ligament, alveolar bone, and buccal tube, were established. The models were divided into the McLaughlin–Bennett–Trevisi (MBT™) straight-wire model with 0-degree maxillary first molar axial inclination and the physiologic anchorage Speewire system (PASS) model with −7-degree maxillary first molar axial inclination. Simulated sliding retraction forces (1 N, 1.5 N, and 2 N) were loaded on the buccal side and lingual side, and retraction forces (0.5 N, 0.75 N, and 1 N) were loaded on the buccal and lingual sides simultaneously. The displacements, principal stresses, and von Mises stresses of the periodontal ligament under different conditions were derived. Results. The anchorage molars showed different degrees of rotation, tipping, intrusion, and extrusion. As the force increased, these displacement trends also increased. The mesial displacement of the buccal + lingual force loading was less than that of the other two groups. Under the same force load method, the mesial displacement of the PASS group was less than that of the MBT group. Tilt movement increases the tensile stress of the distal cervical margin and root mesial apical third and the compressive stress of the mesial cervical margin and root distal apical third. The maximum stress of the periodontal ligament was less than that of the other two groups when the lingual force was loaded. Conclusion. The physiological anchorage control concept in lingual orthodontics provides better sagittal anchorage control than in labial orthodontics, but there is no significant difference numerically. Attention should be given to the control of torsion, torque, and arch width. Tilt movement increases the PDL stress of the cervical margin and root apical third. The sliding retraction force should be loaded lingually to maintain the force value of 1∼1.5 N.

show abstract

Root resorption of maxillary incisors retracted with and without skeletal anchorage

Cited by 16 publications

References 80 publications

Three‐dimensional volumetric evaluation of root resorption in maxillary anteriors following en‐masse retraction with varying force vectors – a randomized control trial

Three‐dimensional volumetric evaluation of root resorption in maxillary anteriors following en‐masse retraction with varying force vectors – a randomized control trial

Evaluation of root resorption after orthodontic treatment: A clinical study of contributory factors

3D Finite Element Study of the Physiological Anchorage Control Concept on Anchorage Molars in Lingual Orthodontics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About