The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
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
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Institution of Turkey (TUBITAK) (No. 214S051).

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.05.014
  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. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219-86.6.1056
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2009.06.006
  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.