The influence of bracket type on the external apical root resorption in class I extraction patients - a retrospective study

Fang, Qin; Zhou, Yu

doi:10.1186/s12903-019-0743-3

Cited by 11 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the significant advantages is less friction, which makes teeth slide along the arch wire under the continuous orthodontic light force and reduces the force on the root. 22 However, conventional brackets induce teeth under the larger intermittent orthodontic force because of the fatigue of stainless steel ligature or the aging of elastometric rings. Studies have shown that the degree of EARR caused by continuous force is more than that caused by intermittent force.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the ten included studies, the one RCT 13 was high quality, and the nine CCTs [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] were A grade. The methodological quality for RCT and CCT trials are presented in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.…”

Section: Methodological Quality Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ten studies [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] were included in this systematic review, but one study 18 did not included in the meta-analysis due to the lack of comparability of data. The feasible data was statistically pooled in meta-analysis to compare the values of EARR between self-ligating and conventional brackets in a long run.…”

Section: External Apical Root Resorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine articles [13][14][15][16][17][19][20][21][22] reported EARR of maxillary central incisors, and the meta-analysis results showed the SMD (95%CI) was -0.42 (-0.76, -0.09), with a significant difference between self-ligating and conventional brackets (P=0.01) (Fig. 2).…”

Section: External Apical Root Resorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2). Eight studies [13][14][15][17][18][19][20][21][22] investigated EARR of maxillary lateral incisors and five studies 15,17,[19][20][21] were categorized into both EARR of mandibular central incisors and EARR of mandibular lateral incisors. Besides, the meta-analysis indicates that there was no significant difference in maxillary lateral incisors (P=0.07; SMD: -0.17; 95%CI: −0.35, 0.01) ( Quality was categorized as A grade(10-12 score), B grade(6-9 score), and C grade(0-5score).…”

Section: External Apical Root Resorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Root resorption in patients treated with self-ligating or conventional brackets: A systematic review

Xie

Yin

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To compare the degree of external apical root resorption (EARR) in patients using self-ligating brackets with conventional brackets in a long run. Methods: Electronic search was made in databases including PubMed, OVID, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, FMRS, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data until November 2019 to retrievalled randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials that compared the EARR between patients using self-ligating or conventional brackets. What’s more, manual search was made in NLM, SIGLE, Campbell library, WHOLIS, Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine and the Journal of Orthodontics. Literature filtering, data extraction and methodological quality evaluation were finished independently by two researchers and disagreements were solved by a third reviewer. Original outcome data, if possible, were subjected to statistical pooling by Review Manager 5.3 for Meta analysis.Results: Through a predefined search strategy, ten studies were included in the systematic review and nine eligible studies were pooled in meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between self-ligating and conventional brackets in terms of the value of EARR in maxillary central incisors (P=0.01; SMD: -0.42mm; 95%CI: -0.76, -0.09) in a long run. No significant difference in maxillary lateral incisors (P=0.07; SMD: -0.17; 95%CI: −0.35, 0.01), mandibular central incisors (P=0.69; SMD: 0.04; 95%CI: −0.17, 0.26) and mandibular lateral incisors (P=0.38; SMD: −0.10; 95%CI: −0.32, 0.12).Conclusions: Self-ligating brackets have a long-term effect in protecting maxillary central incisors from the EARR compared to conventional brackets. However, self-ligating brackets were not superior to conventional brackets in reducing the EARR of maxillary lateral incisors, mandible central incisors and mandible lateral incisors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Quality Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: External Apical Root Resorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: External Apical Root Resorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: External Apical Root Resorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Root resorption in patients treated with self-ligating or conventional brackets: A systematic review

Xie

Yin

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Orthodontic root resorption

Sameshima

Iglesias-Linares

2021

Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of bracket torque on external apical root resorption in bimaxillary protrusion patients: a retrospective study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To evaluate the difference in root resorption between standard torque self-ligating brackets and high torque self-ligating brackets in bimaxillary protrusion patients after orthodontic treatment. Methods Pre-treatment and post-treatment Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) of 32 patients (16 treated with the high torque DamonQ 0.022″ bracket and 16 with the 0.022″ standard torque self-ligating bracket) were selected. The first premolars were extracted from all patients before treatment. After mini-screw implants were inserted into the buccal region between the second premolar and first molar, 150 g of force was applied to retract the upper and lower anterior teeth to close the extraction space on each side. CBCT images of all patients were taken before and after treatment. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the maxillary central incisor, lateral incisor and canine was conducted with Mimics 20.0 software. The volumes of the roots were calculated using Gomagics Studio 12.0 software. The differences between the pre-treatment and post-treatment root volumes were statistically evaluated with a paired-samples t-test. Results There was no statistically significant difference in root resorption degree between the two kinds of torque brackets. The patient’s degree of root resorption in the high torque self-ligating group was greater than that in the standard torque group. Conclusions There was no significant difference in root external apical resorption between the high torque self-ligating brackets and the standard torque self-ligating brackets in bimaxillary protrusion patients.

show abstract

The influence of bracket type on the external apical root resorption in class I extraction patients - a retrospective study

Cited by 11 publications

References 30 publications

Root resorption in patients treated with self-ligating or conventional brackets: A systematic review

Root resorption in patients treated with self-ligating or conventional brackets: A systematic review

Orthodontic root resorption

The influence of bracket torque on external apical root resorption in bimaxillary protrusion patients: a retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About