DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Does mini-implant-supported rapid maxillary expansion cause less root resorption than traditional approaches? A micro-computed tomography study

  • Received : 2020.05.19
  • Accepted : 2020.12.31
  • Published : 2021.07.25

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the volume, amount, and localization of root resorption in the maxillary first premolars using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) after expansion with four different rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliances. Methods: In total, 20 patients who required RME and extraction of the maxillary first premolars were recruited for this study. The patients were divided into four groups according to the appliance used: mini-implant-supported hybrid RME appliance, hyrax RME appliance, acrylic-bonded RME appliance, and full-coverage RME appliance. The same activation protocol (one activation daily) was implemented in all groups. For each group, the left and right maxillary first premolars were scanned using micro-CT, and each root were divided into six regions. Resorption craters in the six regions were analyzed using special CTAn software for direct volumetric measurements. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni adjustment. Results: The hybrid expansion appliance resulted in the lowest volume of root resorption and the smallest number of craters (p < 0.001). In terms of overall root resorption, no significant difference was found among the other groups (p > 0.05). Resorption was greater on the buccal surface than on the lingual surface in all groups except the hybrid appliance group (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that all expansion appliances cause root resorption, with resorption craters generally concentrated on the buccal surface. However, the mini-implant-supported hybrid RME appliance causes lesser root resorption than do other conventional appliances.

Keywords

References

  1. Almuzian M, Short L, Isherwood G, Al-Muzian L, McDonald J. Rapid maxillary expansion: a review of appliance designs, biomechanics and clinical aspects. Orthod Update 2016;9:90-5. https://doi.org/10.12968/ortu.2016.9.3.90
  2. Erverdi N, Okar I, Kucukkeles N, Arbak S. A comparison of two different rapid palatal expansion techniques from the point of root resorption. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:47-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70020-6
  3. Odenrick L, Karlander EL, Pierce A, Kretschmar U. Surface resorption following two forms of rapid maxillary expansion. Eur J Orthod 1991;13:264-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/13.4.264
  4. Barber AF, Sims MR. Rapid maxillary expansion and external root resorption in man: a scanning electron microscope study. Am J Orthod 1981;79:630-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(81)90356-0
  5. Langford SR. Root resorption extremes resulting from clinical RME. Am J Orthod 1982;81:371-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90074-4
  6. Akyalcin S, Alexander SP, Silva RM, English JD. Evaluation of three-dimensional root surface changes and resorption following rapid maxillary expansion: a cone beam computed tomography investigation. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015;18 Suppl 1:117-26.
  7. Yildirim M, Akin M. Comparison of root resorption after bone-borne and tooth-borne rapid maxillary expansion evaluated with the use of microtomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019;155:182-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.03.021
  8. Malkoc S, Iseri H, Durmus E. Semirapid maxillary expansion and mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis in adults: a five-year follow-up study. Semin Orthod 2012;18:152-61. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2011.10.013
  9. Orhan M, Usumez S, Malkoc S. Modified bonded rapid maxillary expansion appliance. World J Orthod. 2003;4:119-25.
  10. Dindaroglu F, Dogan S. Evaluation and comparison of root resorption between tooth-borne and tooth-tissue borne rapid maxillary expansion appliances: a CBCT study. Angle Orthod 2016;86:46-52. https://doi.org/10.2319/010515-007.1
  11. Ludwig B, Sebastian B, Bowman SJ. Mini-implants in orthodontics: innovative anchorage concepts. London: Quintessence Publishing; 2008.
  12. Kayalar E, Schauseil M, Kuvat SV, Emekli U, Firatli S. Comparison of tooth-borne and hybrid devices in surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized clinical cone-beam computed tomography study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2016;44:285-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.12.001
  13. Cheng LL, Turk T, Elekdag-Turk S, Jones AS, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Physical properties of root cementum: part 13. Repair of root resorption 4 and 8 weeks after the application of continuous light and heavy forces for 4 weeks: a microcomputed-tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:320.e1-10; discussion 320-1.
  14. Celik Guler O, Malkoc S. Effects of orthodontic force on root surface damage caused by contact with temporary anchorage devices and on the repair process. Korean J Orthod 2019;49:106-15. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2019.49.2.106
  15. Malkoc MA, Sevimay M, Tatar I, Celik HH. Micro-CT detection and characterization of porosity in luting cements. J Prosthodont 2015;24:553-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12251
  16. Karaaslan G, Malkoc MA, Yildirim G, Malkoc S. Comparison of time-dependent two-dimensional and three-dimensional stability with micro-computerized tomography and wettability of three impression materials. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21:912-20.
  17. Demir N, Ozturk AN, Malkoc MA. Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique. Eur J Dent 2014;8:437-44. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.143612
  18. Kucuk EB, Malkoc S, Demir A. Microcomputed tomography evaluation of white spot lesion remineralization with various procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:483-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.02.026
  19. Brezniak N, Wasserstein A. Orthodontic root resorption: a new perspective. Angle Orthod 2016;86: 1056-7.
  20. Davidovitch Z, Krishnan V. Role of basic biological sciences in clinical orthodontics: a case series. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:222-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.028
  21. Verstraaten J, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Mommaerts MY, Berge SJ, Nada RM, Schols JG. A systematic review of the effects of bone-borne surgical assisted rapid maxillary expansion. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:166-74.
  22. Wilmes B, Nienkemper M, Drescher D. Application and effectiveness of a mini-implant- and tooth-borne rapid palatal expansion device: the hybrid hyrax. World J Orthod 2010;11:323-30.
  23. Maltha JC, van Leeuwen EJ, Dijkman GE, KuijpersJagtman AM. Incidence and severity of root resorption in orthodontically moved premolars in dogs. Orthod Craniofac Res 2004;7:115-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2004.00283.x
  24. Chan EK, Darendeliler MA. Exploring the third dimension in root resorption. Orthod Craniofac Res 2004;7:64-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2004.00280.x
  25. Dudic A, Giannopoulou C, Martinez M, Montet X, Kiliaridis S. Diagnostic accuracy of digitized periapical radiographs validated against micro-computed tomography scanning in evaluating orthodontically induced apical root resorption. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:467-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00559.x
  26. Ericson S, Kurol J. Incisor root resorptions due to ectopic maxillary canines imaged by computerized tomography: a comparative study in extracted teeth. Angle Orthod 2000;70:276-83.