The Effects of Orthodontic Forces during Canine Retraction Using Self-ligating Brackets on Gingival Crevicular Fluid Enzyme Activity, Canine Movement and Root Resorption

Wahab, Rohaya Megat Abdul; Yamamoto, Zulham; Sintian, Albira; Kasim, Nurfathiha Abu; Abidin, Intan Zarina Zainol; Senafi, Sahidan; Ariffin, Shahrul Hisham Zainal

doi:10.17576/jsm-2015-4402-12

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…18 Another article was excluded 19 to avoid result overestimation, as the author failed to reply to an e-mail regarding the sample size used. A remaining total of 12 articles, two RCTs, 20,21 and 10 randomized split-mouth studies, 18,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] met the inclusion criteria of this review and were used in the final qualitative analysis. The selection process is summarized in Figure 1, and the main characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table II.…”

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One RCT 20 showed an unambiguous low risk of bias, whereas the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias. 18,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]29,30 Tests for the risk of bias across studies were not undertaken.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies [22][23][24][25] that compared 100 cN with 150 cN forces favored the higher range; however, of these, only in 2 studies, 22,25 the difference in the rate of OTM was found to be statistically significant (P \ 0.05). Iwasaki Abdul Wahab 2014 23 Ariffin 2013 25 Bokas 2006 26 Falkensammer 2014 20 Iwasaki 2017 18 Keng 2012 27 Luppanapornlarp 2010 28 Megat Abdul Wahab 2013 22 Norman 2016 21 Samuels 1998 29 Wahab 2015 24 Yee 2009 30 Low risk of bias et al 18 assessed 5 different force magnitudes (ie, 18, 60, 120, 240, and 360 cN), showing an optimal force range between 120 cN and 240 cN, as well as more distopalatal rotations with forces of 360 cN. One study 28 compared 50 cN with 150 cN and found no significant difference in the rate of OTM between the experimental groups (P .0.05).…”

Section: Rate Of Otmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…EARR EARR was examined in 2 studies from the same author group. 22,24 Abdul Wahab et al 23 used the methods reported by Liou and Huang (score range, 0-3) to assess apical and lateral root resorption (RR) on periapical radiographs taken at baseline, 5 weeks, and 6 months after maxillary canine retraction. No RR was detected around the canines of either the test or control teeth between the cN and 150 cN forces.…”

Section: Rate Of Otmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Optimal force magnitude for bodily orthodontic tooth movement with fixed appliances: A systematic review

Theodorou¹,

Kuijpers-Jagtman

Bronkhorst³

et al. 2019

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rate Of Otmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rate Of Otmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Optimal force magnitude for bodily orthodontic tooth movement with fixed appliances: A systematic review

Theodorou¹,

Kuijpers-Jagtman

Bronkhorst³

et al. 2019

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…At present, root resorption can only be detected using radiographs. Periapical radiographs have previously been used to measure root resorption [1,14,22]. In this study, periapical radiographs were obtained on central incisors at T0 and T6 as evidence of root resorption.…”

Section: Radiographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Label-free quantitative proteomic analysis of gingival crevicular fluid to identify potential early markers for root resorption

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Orthodontically-induced root resorption is an iatrogenic effect and it cannot be examined regularly due to the harmful effects of sequential doses of radiation with more frequent radiography. This study aims to compare protein abundance (PA) of pre-treatment and during orthodontic treatment for root resorption and to determine potential early markers for root resorption. Methods Ten subjects (n = 10) who had upper and lower fixed appliances (MBT, 3 M Unitek, 0.022″ × 0.028″) were recruited for this study. Human gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) was obtained using periopaper strips at pre-treatment (T0), 1 month (T1), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T6) of orthodontic treatment. Periapical radiographs of the upper permanent central incisors were taken at T0 and T6 to measure the amount of root resorption. Identification of changes in PA was performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Student’s t-test was then performed to determine the significance of the differences in protein abundance before and after orthodontic treatment. Results Our findings showed that all ten subjects had mild root resorption, with an average resorption length of 0.56 ± 0.30 mm. A total of 186 proteins were found to be commonly present at T0, T1, T3, and T6. There were significant changes in the abundance of 16 proteins (student’s t-test, p ≤ 0.05). The increased PA of S100A9, immunoglobulin J chain, heat shock protein 1A, immunoglobulin heavy variable 4–34 and vitronectin at T1 suggested a response to stress that involved inflammation during the early phase of orthodontic treatment. On the other hand, the increased PA of thymidine phosphorylase at T3 suggested growth promotion and, angiogenic and chemotactic activities. Conclusions The identified proteins can be potential early markers for root resorption based on the increase in their respective PA and predicted roles during the early phase of orthodontic treatment. Non-invasive detection of root resorption using protein markers as early as possible is extremely important as it can aid orthodontists in successful orthodontic treatment.

show abstract

Duration of canine retraction with fixed appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Wazwaz

Seehra²,

Carpenter³

et al. 2023

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Effects of Orthodontic Forces during Canine Retraction Using Self-ligating Brackets on Gingival Crevicular Fluid Enzyme Activity, Canine Movement and Root Resorption

Abstract: Alkaline phosphatase (ALP), tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) activities

Cited by 8 publications

References 32 publications

Optimal force magnitude for bodily orthodontic tooth movement with fixed appliances: A systematic review

Optimal force magnitude for bodily orthodontic tooth movement with fixed appliances: A systematic review

Label-free quantitative proteomic analysis of gingival crevicular fluid to identify potential early markers for root resorption

Duration of canine retraction with fixed appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About