Root Resorption During Orthodontic Treatment with Self-ligating or Conventional Brackets: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2016 Nov 23

PMID 27871255

Citations 7

Authors

Jianru Yi

Meile Li

Yu Li

Xiaobing Li

Zhihe Zhao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The 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.

Methods: Studies 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.

Results: Seven 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.

Conclusions: Current 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.

Citing Articles

Reliability and agreement of root length measurements during orthodontic treatment in images from different CBCT machines using multiplanar reconstruction.

Johansson K, Paulsson L, Christell H Biomater Investig Dent. 2024; 11:41161.

PMID: 39228399 PMC: 11371306. DOI: 10.2340/biid.v11.41161.

Trabecular Bone Component Assessment under Orthodontic Loads and Movements during Periodontal Breakdown-A Finite Elements Analysis.

Moga R, Olteanu C, Delean A Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(6).

PMID: 38920891 PMC: 11202809. DOI: 10.3390/dj12060190.

External Apical Root Resorption in Orthodontic Patients Who Practice Combat Sports: A Case-Control Observational Pilot Study.

Acevedo-Mascarua A, Torres-Rosas R, Perez-Cervera Y, Perez-Cruz D, Ku-Valenzuela L, Gijon-Soriano A Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58(10).

PMID: 36295503 PMC: 9610488. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58101342.

Updated Guidelines for the Orthodontic Management of Traumatized and Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Review Study.

Bakkari A, Bin Salamah F Cureus. 2022; 14(9):e28943.

PMID: 36237800 PMC: 9547618. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28943.

A comparison of the effects of two orthodontic techniques in the orthodontic treatment of sagittal skeletal patterns.

Mai T, Guan X, Li X Am J Transl Res. 2021; 13(6):6221-6228.

PMID: 34306361 PMC: 8290744.

References

Scott P, DiBiase A, Sherriff M, Cobourne M . Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(4):470.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.018. View

Begg C, Mazumdar M . Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994; 50(4):1088-101. View

Tieu L, Saltaji H, Normando D, Flores-Mir C . Radiologically determined orthodontically induced external apical root resorption in incisors after non-surgical orthodontic treatment of class II division 1 malocclusion: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2014; 15:48. PMC: 4138553. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0048-7. View

DAddazio P, Campos C, Ozcan M, Teixeira H, Passoni R, Carvalho A . A comparative study between cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs in the diagnosis of simulated endodontic complications. Int Endod J. 2010; 44(3):218-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01802.x. View

Artun J, Smale I, Behbehani F, Doppel D, Vant Hof M, Kuijpers-Jagtman A . Apical root resorption six and 12 months after initiation of fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. Angle Orthod. 2006; 75(6):919-26. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[919:ARRSAM]2.0.CO;2. View

Hellsing E, Hammarstrom L . The hyaline zone and associated root surface changes in experimental orthodontics in rats: a light and scanning electron microscope study. Eur J Orthod. 1996; 18(1):11-8. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/18.1.11. View

Janson G, De Luca Canto G, Martins D, Henriques J, de Freitas M . A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with 3 different fixed appliance techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 118(3):262-73. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2000.99136. View

Blake M, Woodside D, Pharoah M . A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with the edgewise and Speed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108(1):76-84. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70069-2. View

Leite V, Conti A, Navarro R, Almeida M, Oltramari-Navarro P, Almeida R . Comparison of root resorption between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82(6):1078-82. PMC: 8813145. DOI: 10.2319/080911-501.1. View

10.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2535. PMC: 2714657. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2535. View

11.

Pringle A, Petrie A, Cunningham S, McKnight M . Prospective randomized clinical trial to compare pain levels associated with 2 orthodontic fixed bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136(2):160-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.032. View

12.

Kim D, Lim B, Baek S . Frictional property comparisons of conventional and self-ligating lingual brackets according to tooth displacement during initial leveling and alignment: an in vitro mechanical study. Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46(2):87-95. PMC: 4807153. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.2.87. View

13.

Liu X, Sun X, Yang Q, Fan C, Chen X . [Comparative study on the apical root resorption between self-ligating and conventional brackets in extraction patients]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2012; 21(4):460-5. View

14.

Fleming P, Johal A . Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(3):575-84. PMC: 8985730. DOI: 10.2319/081009-454.1. View

15.

Chan E, Darendeliler M . Physical properties of root cementum: Part 5. Volumetric analysis of root resorption craters after application of light and heavy orthodontic forces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127(2):186-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.11.026. View

16.

Chen W, Haq A, Zhou Y . Root resorption of self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets in severe anterior crowding Class I patients: a longitudinal retrospective study. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 15:115. PMC: 4590271. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0100-0. View

17.

Katona T . Flaws in root resorption assessment algorithms: role of tooth shape. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(6):698.e19-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.012. View

18.

Weiland F . Constant versus dissipating forces in orthodontics: the effect on initial tooth movement and root resorption. Eur J Orthod. 2003; 25(4):335-42. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/25.4.335. View

19.

Pandis N, Nasika M, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T . External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(5):646-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.032. View

20.

Saltaji H, Major M, Altalibi M, Youssef M, Flores-Mir C . Long-term skeletal stability after maxillary advancement with distraction osteogenesis in cleft lip and palate patients. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82(6):1115-22. PMC: 8813140. DOI: 10.2319/011212-27.1. View