Issues‎ > ‎Vol 7, issue 1‎ > ‎

sdj-10122

Reliability of Expected Root Position in Two Different Bracket Bonding and Positioning Techniques (A Comparative Ex-Vitro Study)

Zhwan J. Rashid*, Omer F. Chawshli**

*Pedodontic, Orthodontic, and Preventive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq.
**Pedodontic, Orthodontic, and Preventive Dentistry Department, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.


Submitted: 03/09/2020; Accepted: 28/10/2020; Published 01/12/2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10122

Abstract

Objective: To measure the reproducibility of expecting root position (ERP) in various brackets bonding and positioning techniques.          

Methods: Twenty Angle’s Class-I typodont models were divided into four groups of five models each. The first two groups were bonded directly, and the other two groups were bonded indirectly. Intraoral scanning and CBCT were taken before and after simulation orthodontic treatment for each model. The pre-treatment CBCT of models was matched to the digital crown of the post-treatment intraoral scanner of the models in order to put the root in the expected position. At the same time, the true root position was obtained from the CBCT of post-treated models. Finally, the true and ERPs were superimposed by part comparison analysis function in 3-Matic software to measure mm displacement between two compared parts. The intra-examiner reliability was tested by the Bland-Altman method. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the displacement means of true and ERP.      

Results: There was no significant difference between the mean of true and ERP among the study groups for maxillary and mandibular arches (P>0.05).  

Conclusions: Combining data from CBCT and the digital models, simulation of the root positions was statistically validated with direct and indirect techniques of bracket positioning and bonding.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Keywords: Expected root position, CBCT, Bracket bonding, Bracket positioning.                                                                                                                                                                                                                Full Article - PDF                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

References:

1. Lee R, Ko J, Park J, Pi S, Devgon D, Nelson G, Hatcher D, Oberoi S. Accuracy and reliability of the expected root position setup on clinical decision making of root position at midtreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019;156(4):566-73.
2. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1972;62(3):296-309.
3. Lee R, Weissheimer A, Pham J, Go L, de Menezes L, Redmond W, et al. Three-dimensional monitoring of root movement during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147(1):132-42.
4. Balut N, Klapper L, Sandrik J, Bowman D. Variations in bracket placement in the preadjusted orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;102(1):62-7.
5. Miethke R. Third order tooth movements with straight wire appliances. Influence of vestibular tooth crown morphology in the vertical plane. J Orofac Orthop. 1997;58(4):186-97.
6. Miethke R, Melsen B. Effect of variation in tooth morphology and bracket position on first and third order correction with preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1999;116(99):329- 35.
7. Lagravère M, Carey J, Toogood R, Major P. Three- dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(1):112-6.
8. Mckee I, Glover K, Williamson P, Lam E, Heo G, Major P. The effect of vertical and horizontal head positioning in panoramic radiography on mesiodistal tooth angulations. Angle Orthod. 2001;71(6):442-51.
9. Garcia-Figueroa M, Raboud D, Lam E, Heo G, Major P. Effect of buccolingual root angulation on the mesiodistal angulation shown on panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(1):93-9.
10. Owens A, Johal A. Near-end of treatment panoramic radiograph in the assessment of mesiodistal root angulation. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(3):475-81. Vol 7(2) Rashid and Chawshli 113.
11. Lascala C, Panella J, Marques M. Analysis of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT-NewTom). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004;33(5):291-4.
12. Hutchinson S. Cone beam computed tomography panoramic images vs. traditional panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;128(4):550.
13. Ludlow J, Davies-Ludlow L, Brooks S, Howerton W. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006;35(4):219-26.
14. Brooks S. CBCT dosimetry: orthodontic considerations. Semin Orthod. 2009;15(1):14-8.
15. Zahra H. The role of CBCT in implant dentistry: uses, benefits and limitations. Br Dent J. 2020; 228(7):560-1.
16. Abdelkarim A. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Orthodontics. Dent J. 2019;7(3):89.
17. Nasseh I, Jensen D, Noujeim M. Comparison of mesiodistal root angulation measured from conventional and CBCT derived panoramic radiographs in orthodontic patients. Open Dent J. 2017;11:338-49.
18. Lee R, Pham J, Choy M, Weissheimer A, Dougherty H, Sameshima G, et al. Monitoring of typodont root movement via crown superimposition of single cone-beam computed tomography and consecutive intraoral scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(3):399-409.
19. Lee R, Pi S, Park J, Nelson G, Hatcher D, Oberoi S. Three-dimensional evaluation of root position at the reset appointment without radiographs: a proof-of-concept study. Prog Orthod. 2018;19(1):15.
20. Lee R, Pi S, Park J, Devgon D, Nelson G, Hatcher D, et al. Accuracy and reliability of the expected root position setup methodology to evaluate root position during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;154(4):583-95.
21. Lee R, Park J, Pi S, Nelson G, Hatcher D, Oberoi S. Accuracy of the expected root position setup to monitor root angulations and inclinations during orthodontic treatment: A pilot study. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2018;52(1):44-50.
22. Likitmongkolsakul U, Aksornmuang J, Smithmaitrie P, Samruajbenjakun B. Three- dimensional simulation of root position through a combined technique using cone-beam computed tomography and a digital model. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2019;53(2):126-34.
23. Bennett J and McLaughlin R. Fundamentals of orthodontic treatment mechanics (pp.66-69). London and Dubai: Le Grande Publishing; 2014.
24. Andrews LF. Straight wire: the concept and appliance. LA Wells Company. San Diego CA92107, ISNB 0-9616256-0-0;1989.
25. Ludlow J, Timothy R, Walker C, Hunter R, Benavides E, Samuelson D. Correction to effective dose of dental CBCT—a meta-analysis of published data and additional data for nine CBCT units. Dento Maxillo Fac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140197.







Creative Commons License © The Authors, published by University of Sulaimani, College of Dentistry