Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 May;79(3):181-190.
doi: 10.1007/s00056-018-0133-5. Epub 2018 Apr 12.

Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets : A cone-beam computed tomography study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets : A cone-beam computed tomography study

Isil Aras et al. J Orofac Orthop. 2018 May.

Abstract

Objectives: Purpose of the present study was to compare external root resorption (ERR) volumetrically in maxillary incisors induced by orthodontic treatment using self-ligating brackets (Damon Q, DQ) or conventional brackets (Titanium Orthos, TO) with the help of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Patients and methods: A sample of 32 subjects, with Angle Class I malocclusion and anterior crowding of 4-10 mm, was divided randomly into two groups: a DQ group, in which self-ligating DQ brackets with Damon archwires were used; and a TO group, in which conventional TO brackets with large Orthos archwires were applied. The study was conducted using CBCT scans taken before (T1), and near the end (9 months after the initiation of treatment; T2) of the orthodontic treatment. The extent of ERR was determined volumetrically using Mimics software. Changes in root volume were evaluated by repeated-measures analysis of variance as well as by paired and independent t-tests.

Results: While significant differences were found between T1 and T2 for root volume in both groups (p < 0.05), there was no difference between the groups regarding the amount (mm3 or relative change) of ERR (p > 0.05). Maxillary central and lateral incisors showed similar volume loss (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the TO group showed a higher prevalence of palatinal and proximal slanted RR compared with the DQ group (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: It is not possible to suggest superiority of one bracket system over the other only considering root resorption pattern or amount. Higher incidence of slanted RR found in patients treated with the TO system warrants further research to identify possible specific causes.

Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT); Conventional brackets; Root resorption; Root volume; Self-ligating brackets.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2012 Nov;15(4):255-62 - PubMed
    1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Apr;139(4):e353-60 - PubMed
    1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991 Jan;99(1):35-43 - PubMed
    1. J Dent Res. 2010 Dec;89(12 ):1465-9 - PubMed
    1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Oct;134(4):470.e1-8 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources