External root resorption and rapid maxillary expansion in the short-term: a CBCT comparative study between tooth-borne and bone-borne appliances, using 3D imaging digital technology.
Bone-borne-RME
ERR
Maxillary expansion
Orthodontics
RME
Root resorption
Tooth-borne RME
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 08 2023
12 08 2023
Historique:
received:
10
03
2023
accepted:
03
08
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
13
8
2023
entrez:
12
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the study was to analyze and compare external root resorption (ERR) in patients treated with tooth-borne (TB) and bone-borne (BB) rapid maxillary expansion (RME). The sample included 40 subjects who received tooth-borne RME (TB group, average age: 13.1 ± 1.08 years) or bone-borne RME (BB group, average age: 14.5 ± 1.11 years) and Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans before treatment (T0) and after 3-month of retention (T1). A specific 3D Imaging technology was used to generate 3D models of posterior dentition (M1 = maxillary first molars, P2 = second premolars, P1 = first premolar) and calculate volumetric data (mean and percentage values) and shape changes, the latter obtained from deviation analysis between the radicular models at different time points. Evaluation of radicular length changes was performed for each tooth. Data were statistically analysed to perform intra-timing and inter-groups comparisons. A significant reduction of radicular volume and length was found in posterior dentition in both groups (p < 0.05), and the M1 (volume) and its palatal root (length) were mostly involved in this response. No differences were found between M1, P1 and P2 (p > 0.05) when volumetric changes were calculated as percentage of the total volume. Deviation analysis revealed that the radicular areas mostly affected by shape change were the apex and bucco-medial side. The amount of ERR was significantly greater in TB group compared to BB group. BB-RME treatment could reduce the amount of ERR at the post-expansion stage.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of the study was to analyze and compare external root resorption (ERR) in patients treated with tooth-borne (TB) and bone-borne (BB) rapid maxillary expansion (RME).
METHODS
The sample included 40 subjects who received tooth-borne RME (TB group, average age: 13.1 ± 1.08 years) or bone-borne RME (BB group, average age: 14.5 ± 1.11 years) and Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans before treatment (T0) and after 3-month of retention (T1). A specific 3D Imaging technology was used to generate 3D models of posterior dentition (M1 = maxillary first molars, P2 = second premolars, P1 = first premolar) and calculate volumetric data (mean and percentage values) and shape changes, the latter obtained from deviation analysis between the radicular models at different time points. Evaluation of radicular length changes was performed for each tooth. Data were statistically analysed to perform intra-timing and inter-groups comparisons.
RESULTS
A significant reduction of radicular volume and length was found in posterior dentition in both groups (p < 0.05), and the M1 (volume) and its palatal root (length) were mostly involved in this response. No differences were found between M1, P1 and P2 (p > 0.05) when volumetric changes were calculated as percentage of the total volume. Deviation analysis revealed that the radicular areas mostly affected by shape change were the apex and bucco-medial side. The amount of ERR was significantly greater in TB group compared to BB group.
CONCLUSIONS
BB-RME treatment could reduce the amount of ERR at the post-expansion stage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37573295
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03280-9
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-03280-9
pmc: PMC10422725
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
558Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Am J Orthod. 1982 May;81(5):371-7
pubmed: 6758597
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Feb;155(2):182-190
pubmed: 30712689
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jan;22(1):369-376
pubmed: 28488057
Imaging Sci Dent. 2015 Dec;45(4):263-5
pubmed: 26730375
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:4864195
pubmed: 27119080
Angle Orthod. 2002 Apr;72(2):175-9
pubmed: 11999941
Angle Orthod. 2016 Jan;86(1):46-52
pubmed: 25993251
Eur J Orthod. 1991 Aug;13(4):264-70
pubmed: 1915614
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Jul;24(7):2469-2475
pubmed: 31728732
Korean J Orthod. 2021 Jul 25;51(4):241-249
pubmed: 34275880
Eur J Orthod. 2018 May 25;40(3):296-303
pubmed: 29016774
Angle Orthod. 2020 Sep 1;90(5):680-687
pubmed: 33378488
Am J Orthod. 1975 Jul;68(1):42-54
pubmed: 1056143
Am J Orthod. 1981 Jun;79(6):630-52
pubmed: 7015868
Angle Orthod. 2018 Nov;88(6):702-709
pubmed: 30102085
Angle Orthod. 2012 May;82(3):488-94
pubmed: 21843038
Angle Orthod. 2016 Jan;86(1):39-45
pubmed: 25938174
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Mar;137(3):304.e1-12; discussion 304-5
pubmed: 20197161
Prog Orthod. 2019 Feb 25;20(1):9
pubmed: 30799516
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Jul;43(7):543-64
pubmed: 27004835
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Jun 8;43(3):332-337
pubmed: 33215659
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994 Jul;106(1):47-51
pubmed: 8017349
Eur J Orthod. 2020 Jan 29;:
pubmed: 31995170
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012 Dec;41(8):649-55
pubmed: 23166362
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Jun;151(6):1125-1138
pubmed: 28554458
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011 Nov;14(4):206-12
pubmed: 22008300
Iran J Radiol. 2016 Jul 05;13(3):e34985
pubmed: 27853499
Angle Orthod. 2019 Jul;89(4):590-596
pubmed: 31013132
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Sep 4;18(1):156
pubmed: 30180892
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015 Apr;18 Suppl 1:117-26
pubmed: 25865540
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Nov;126(5):576-82
pubmed: 15520690