Dataset Information

Orthodontically induced external apical root resorption in patients treated with fixed appliances vs removable aligners.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether orthodontic treatment with removable aligners vs fixed orthodontic appliances is associated with a different frequency of orthodontically induced external apical root resorption (OIEARR) when genetic, radiographic, and clinical factors are accounted for.

Materials and methods

Three hundred seventy-two orthodontic patients treated with removable aligners (Invisalign) or fixed appliances were genetically screened for interleukin 1B gene (IL1B) (rs1143634), interleukin 1 receptor antagonist gene (IL1RN) (rs419598), and osteopontin gene (SPP1) (rs9138/rs11730582). Twelve clinical variables, potentially associated with OIEARR, were also considered. Subjects were divided according to the presence of radiographically determined OIEARR (>2 mm). The association between OIEARR and appliance type, and radiographic, clinical and genetic factors, was assessed using backward stepwise conditional logistic regression. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported.

Results

Reliability of the methods was adequate. Clinical case complexity (American Board of Orthodontics [ABO] Discrepancy Index) (OR: 1.032; 95% CI: 1.005-1.061; P = .021) and extent of incisor apical displacement in the sagittal plane (OR: 1.478; 95% CI: 1.285-1.699; P = .001) were associated with an increased OIEARR risk. After adjusting for associations between clinical/radiographic/genetic factors, there were no statistically significant differences with respect to OIEARR or type of orthodontic appliance used, whether removable aligners or fixed appliances (OR: 1.662; 95% CI: 0.945-2.924; P = .078). Only subjects homozygous for the T allele of IL1RN (rs419598) were more prone to OIEARR during orthodontic treatment (OR: 3.121; CI: 1.93-5.03; P < .001).

Conclusions

A similar OIEARR predisposition was identified using either removable aligners (Invisalign) or fixed appliances.

SUBMITTER: Iglesias-Linares A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8388604 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a clinical practice guideline on orthodontically induced external apical root resorption (EARR), with evidence-based and, when needed, consensus-based recommendations concerning diagnosis, risk factors, management during treatment, and after-treatment care.Materials and methodsThe Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument and the Dutch Method for Evidence-Based Guideline Development were used to develop the guideline. Based on a survey of all Dutch orthodontists, we formulated four clinical questions regarding EARR. To address these questions, we conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE and Embase, and we performed a systematic literature review. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. After discussing the evidence, a Task Force formulated considerations and recommendations. The drafted guideline was sent for comments to all relevant stakeholders.ResultsEight studies were included. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was rated as low or very low. Only the patient-related risk factors, 'gender' and 'age', showed a moderate quality of evidence. The Task Force formulated 13 final recommendations concerning the detection of EARR, risk factors, EARR management during treatment, and after-treatment care when EARR has occurred. Stakeholder consultation resulted in 51 comments on the drafted guideline. After processing the comments, the final guideline was authorized by the Dutch Association of Orthodontists. The entire process took 3 years.LimitationsThe quality of the available evidence was mainly low, and patient-reported outcome measures were lacking.Conclusions/implicationsThis clinical practice guideline allows clinicians to respond to EARR based on current knowledge, although the recommendations are weak due to low-quality evidence. It may reduce variation between practices and aid in providing patients appropriate information.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the amount of external apical root resorption (EARR) observed during the orthodontic treatment with pre-adjusted edgewise appliance (PEA) or clear aligner therapy (CAT) and with 2D or 3D radiographic methods of measuring the root resorption.Search strategy and selection criteriaA search of PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Web of Science, Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov registry, and the ISRCTN Registry was performed. Studies that have evaluated the amount of root resorption in non-extraction cases using CAT or PEA were selected for the systematic review. A meta-analysis was performed for the amount of root resorption of permanent maxillary incisors using PEA or CAT treatment modalities by either 2D or cone-beam computed tomography radiographic examination.Data collection and analysisDatabase research, elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk of bias were performed by authors independently and in duplication. A random-effect meta-analysis followed by subgroup comparisons were performed to evaluate EARR.ResultsA total of 16 studies (4 were prospective and 12 were retrospective) were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. The mean root resorption for the permanent maxillary incisors was in the range from 0.25 to 1.13 mm (overall: 0.49 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.75 mm). The mean root resorption difference between CAT and PEA was statistically significant (P < 0.05) for 12 but not for 21, 11, or 22.LimitationsOne of the drawbacks is a lack of good quality prospective studies, specifically randomized clinical trials in the literature.Conclusions and implicationsNeither PEA or CAT technique leads to clinically significant root resorption (1 mm) of the maxillary incisors. The amount of EARR of maxillary incisors is not significant in comparing two treatment modalities (PEA and CAT), except for 12, where the PEA group has significantly more EARR when compared to CAT.RegistrationThe protocol for this systematic review was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 and was registered at PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018113051). This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.