Limits...
Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of periodontal and bone support loss in extraction cases.

Lombardo L, Bragazzi R, Perissinotto C, Mirabella D, Siciliani G - Prog Orthod (2013)

Bottom Line: Root length was reduced following treatment in both groups, although to a statistically significantly greater extent in the study group.The buccolingual bone thickness was reduced after treatment in both groups, with no differences found between the study and control groups.The bone loss at the sites assessed was greater in the patients after extraction treatment, with a statistically significant difference revealed between the two groups.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Postgraduate school of orthodontics, Ferrara University, Via Montebello 31, Ferrara 44100, Italy. lulombardo@tiscali.it.

ABSTRACT

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate, in particular, whether bone resorption occurred at the extraction sites of a group of patients under orthodontic treatment, and, in general, whether extraction treatment predisposes patients to a greater degree of root resorption.

Methods: The study group comprised 12 class II division 1 malocclusion patients who underwent orthodontic treatment and extraction, and the control group comprised 10 class II division 1 patients who underwent orthodontic treatment without extraction. In both groups, treatments were carried out by the same operator using the same techniques. Cone-beam computed tomography performed before (T1) and after (T2) treatment was used to determine and compare the root length, the distance from the cementoenamel junction to the base of the defect and to the bone peak, the width of the defect and the buccolingual bone thickness.

Results: Root length was reduced following treatment in both groups, although to a statistically significantly greater extent in the study group. The buccolingual bone thickness was reduced after treatment in both groups, with no differences found between the study and control groups. The bone loss at the sites assessed was greater in the patients after extraction treatment, with a statistically significant difference revealed between the two groups. The site that showed the greatest variation in both groups was distal to the upper canines.

Conclusions: In the present study, extractive orthodontic treatment appeared to predispose patients to a greater degree of root resorption. Indeed, the bone at the extraction site showed greater resorption in the study group with respect to the control group, and the appearance of intraosseous defects was noted in the former.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Values obtained for the distances. CEJ to defect base (1), CEJ to bone peak (2) and defect width (3).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4384922&req=5

Fig3: Values obtained for the distances. CEJ to defect base (1), CEJ to bone peak (2) and defect width (3).

Mentions: Measurements were taken on a sagittal section passing through the root canal, along the long axis of the teeth [16]. From a line joining the mesial and distal cement-enamel junction (CEJ) of each dental element, the line perpendicular to the root apex was traced and used as a basis for the measurements (Figure 1). The root apex was positioned on the sagittal section, and the axial sections were then checked to confirm that the root apex was present in the last section before the root was no longer visible. To measure the alveolar bone at the extraction site, cross-sections passing through the fissure between the buccal and lingual cusps of the lower first premolars and upper second premolars were obtained, and four measurements were taken on each as follows (Figures 2, 3 and 4) [17]:Figure 1


Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of periodontal and bone support loss in extraction cases.

Lombardo L, Bragazzi R, Perissinotto C, Mirabella D, Siciliani G - Prog Orthod (2013)

Values obtained for the distances. CEJ to defect base (1), CEJ to bone peak (2) and defect width (3).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4384922&req=5

Fig3: Values obtained for the distances. CEJ to defect base (1), CEJ to bone peak (2) and defect width (3).
Mentions: Measurements were taken on a sagittal section passing through the root canal, along the long axis of the teeth [16]. From a line joining the mesial and distal cement-enamel junction (CEJ) of each dental element, the line perpendicular to the root apex was traced and used as a basis for the measurements (Figure 1). The root apex was positioned on the sagittal section, and the axial sections were then checked to confirm that the root apex was present in the last section before the root was no longer visible. To measure the alveolar bone at the extraction site, cross-sections passing through the fissure between the buccal and lingual cusps of the lower first premolars and upper second premolars were obtained, and four measurements were taken on each as follows (Figures 2, 3 and 4) [17]:Figure 1

Bottom Line: Root length was reduced following treatment in both groups, although to a statistically significantly greater extent in the study group.The buccolingual bone thickness was reduced after treatment in both groups, with no differences found between the study and control groups.The bone loss at the sites assessed was greater in the patients after extraction treatment, with a statistically significant difference revealed between the two groups.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Postgraduate school of orthodontics, Ferrara University, Via Montebello 31, Ferrara 44100, Italy. lulombardo@tiscali.it.

ABSTRACT

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate, in particular, whether bone resorption occurred at the extraction sites of a group of patients under orthodontic treatment, and, in general, whether extraction treatment predisposes patients to a greater degree of root resorption.

Methods: The study group comprised 12 class II division 1 malocclusion patients who underwent orthodontic treatment and extraction, and the control group comprised 10 class II division 1 patients who underwent orthodontic treatment without extraction. In both groups, treatments were carried out by the same operator using the same techniques. Cone-beam computed tomography performed before (T1) and after (T2) treatment was used to determine and compare the root length, the distance from the cementoenamel junction to the base of the defect and to the bone peak, the width of the defect and the buccolingual bone thickness.

Results: Root length was reduced following treatment in both groups, although to a statistically significantly greater extent in the study group. The buccolingual bone thickness was reduced after treatment in both groups, with no differences found between the study and control groups. The bone loss at the sites assessed was greater in the patients after extraction treatment, with a statistically significant difference revealed between the two groups. The site that showed the greatest variation in both groups was distal to the upper canines.

Conclusions: In the present study, extractive orthodontic treatment appeared to predispose patients to a greater degree of root resorption. Indeed, the bone at the extraction site showed greater resorption in the study group with respect to the control group, and the appearance of intraosseous defects was noted in the former.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus