Background <p>To determine the apical root resorption (ARR) associated with three different orthodontic treatment methods for Class II malocclusion.</p> Methods <p>ARR of the upper and lower incisors was evaluated in patients treated with Forsus (FG; <i>n</i> = 20), headgear (CHG; <i>n</i> = 20), and fixed orthodontic appliances involving extraction of the upper first premolars (EG; <i>n</i> = 20). A total of 480 teeth were evaluated using panoramic radiographs obtained at T1 (after active treatment) and T2 (during retention). ARR was assessed using a scoring system ranging from 0 to 4. ANOVA, the Kruskal–Wallis test, and the chi-square test were used for statistical analysis.</p> Results <p>ARR of the lower right lateral incisors in the FG was greater than that in the CHG at T1 (<i>P</i> = 0.031). In the EG, greater ARR was observed in the upper right lateral incisors at T1 <i>(P</i> = 0.037) and in the upper left central incisors at T2 (<i>P</i> = 0.038) compared with the FG. The resorption scores of the incisors did not change between T1 and T2 in any group, except for the lower left central incisors.</p> Conclusions <p>Correction of Class II malocclusions using Forsus, headgear, or extraction of the maxillary first premolars followed by fixed appliance treatment results in varying degrees of ARR after active treatment.</p> Trial registration <p>Retrospective observational study. This study evaluated data from the years 2015 to 2024.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Root resorption in Class II malocclusion treatment with various methods

  • Fundagül Bilgiç Zortuk,
  • Eyüp Burak Küçük,
  • Çağrı Yeşildağ

摘要

Background

To determine the apical root resorption (ARR) associated with three different orthodontic treatment methods for Class II malocclusion.

Methods

ARR of the upper and lower incisors was evaluated in patients treated with Forsus (FG; n = 20), headgear (CHG; n = 20), and fixed orthodontic appliances involving extraction of the upper first premolars (EG; n = 20). A total of 480 teeth were evaluated using panoramic radiographs obtained at T1 (after active treatment) and T2 (during retention). ARR was assessed using a scoring system ranging from 0 to 4. ANOVA, the Kruskal–Wallis test, and the chi-square test were used for statistical analysis.

Results

ARR of the lower right lateral incisors in the FG was greater than that in the CHG at T1 (P = 0.031). In the EG, greater ARR was observed in the upper right lateral incisors at T1 (P = 0.037) and in the upper left central incisors at T2 (P = 0.038) compared with the FG. The resorption scores of the incisors did not change between T1 and T2 in any group, except for the lower left central incisors.

Conclusions

Correction of Class II malocclusions using Forsus, headgear, or extraction of the maxillary first premolars followed by fixed appliance treatment results in varying degrees of ARR after active treatment.

Trial registration

Retrospective observational study. This study evaluated data from the years 2015 to 2024.