The role of orthodontic tooth movement in bone and root mineral density: A study of patients submitted and not submitted to orthodontic treatment

Campos, Márcio José da Silva; Albuquerque, Elisa Gomes de; Pinto, Bernardo Caixeiro Hauck; Húngaro, Hélio Moreira; Gravina, Marco Abdo; Fraga, Marcelo Reis; Vitral, Robert Willer Farinazzo

doi:10.12659/msm.883604

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to conducting mouse model experiments, several scholars have also used dental CBCT to measure the alveolar bone densities of orthodontic patients. Campos et al 26 compared the bone mineral densities (BMDs) and root mineral densities (RMDs) of 30 untreated persons and 15 patients who had completed their orthodontic treatment. The results revealed that the RMDs of the 15 patients were reduced, but their BMDs were similar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some previous studies on the effect of orthodontic treatment on changes in alveolar bone density have indicated that orthodontic tooth movement can decrease bone density around the teeth, 19 , 21 – 23 whereas others have reported the opposite. 21 , 24 , 25 Campos et al 26 indicated that bone density around the teeth following orthodontic treatment is similar to that from before treatment. Thus, research results regarding the effect of orthodontic treatment on bone density around the teeth have been inconsistent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Orthodontic Treatment Affect the Alveolar Bone Density?

Huang

Liu

et al. 2016

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few studies involving human participants have been conducted to investigate the effect of orthodontic treatment on alveolar bone density around the teeth. Our previous study revealed that patients who received 6 months of active orthodontic treatment exhibited an ∼24% decrease in alveolar bone density around the teeth. However, after an extensive retention period following orthodontic treatment, whether the bone density around the teeth can recover to its original state from before the treatment remains unclear, thus warranting further investigation.The purpose of this study was to assess the bone density changes around the teeth before, during, and after orthodontic treatment.Dental cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to measure the changes in bone density around 6 teeth in the anterior maxilla (maxilla central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines) of 8 patients before and after orthodontic treatment. Each patient underwent 3 dental CBCT scans: before treatment (T0); at the end of 7 months of active orthodontic treatment (T1); after several months (20–22 months) of retention (T2). The Friedman test was applied to evaluate the changes in the alveolar bone density around the teeth according to the 3 dental CBCT scans.From T0 to T1, a significant reduction in bone density was observed around the teeth (23.36 ± 10.33%); by contrast, a significant increase was observed from T1 to T2 (31.81 ± 23.80%). From the perspective of the overall orthodontic treatment, comparing the T0 and T2 scans revealed that the bone density around the teeth was relatively constant (a reduction of only 0.75 ± 19.85%). The results of the statistical test also confirmed that the difference in bone density between T0 and T2 was nonsignificant.During orthodontic tooth movement, the alveolar bone density around the teeth was reduced. However, after a period of bone recovery, the reduced bone density recovered to its previous state from before the orthodontic treatment. However, the bone density around ∼10% of the teeth in this region could not recover to 80% of its state from before the orthodontic treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Does Orthodontic Treatment Affect the Alveolar Bone Density?

Huang

Liu

et al. 2016

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, CBCT has been proposed as a diagnostic method for the determination of bone mineral density [10,11,18,[34][35][36] . Gray values obtained with CBCT are used in an analog way as the HU values for the determination of mineral density [16] and show a linear relationship with the attenuation coefficients of the materials [13,15] , HU values obtained with medical CT [11,12,37,38] , and density values from DEXA [14] .…”

Section: Cone Beam Ctmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone mineral density in cone beam computed tomography: Only a few shades of gray

Campos

Souza

Júnior

et al. 2014

WJR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) has often been used to determine the quality of craniofacial bone structures through the determination of mineral density, which is based on gray scales of the images obtained. However, there is no consensus regarding the accuracy of the determination of the gray scales in these exams. This study aims to provide a literature review concerning the reliability of CBCT to determine bone mineral density. The gray values obtained with CBCT show a linear relationship with the attenuation coefficients of the materials, Hounsfield Units values obtained with medical computed tomography, and density values from dual energy X-ray absorciometry. However, errors are expected when CBCT images are used to define the quality of the scanned structures because these images show inconsistencies and arbitrariness in the gray values, particularly when related to abrupt change in the density of the object, X-ray beam hardening effect, scattered radiation, projection data discontinuity-related effect, differences between CBCT devices, changes in the volume of the field of view (FOV), and changes in the relationships of size and position between the FOV and the object evaluated. A few methods of mathematical correction of the gray scales in CBCT have been proposed; however, they do not generate consistent values that are independent of the devices and their configurations or of the scanned objects. Thus, CBCT should not be considered the examination of choice for the determination of bone and soft tissue mineral density at the current stage, particularly when values obtained are to be compared to predetermined standard values. Comparisons between symmetrically positioned structures inside the FOV and in relation to the exomass of the object, as it occurs with the right and left sides of the skull, seem to be viable because the effects on the gray scale in the regions of interest are the same.

show abstract

“…It is often thought that alveolar bone remodeling follows orthodontic tooth movement. Retracted teeth move through the alveolar bone, causing bone remodeling to occur with potential change in bone density and thickness to adapt to its new position [1][2][3]. Premolar extraction and orthodontic correction have been shown to be very effective in reducing dental protrusion in many studies [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar bone remodeling during maxillary incisor intrusion and retraction

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Maxillary incisor protrusion is a prevalent dental deformity and is often treated by upper incisor intrusion and retraction. The mechanical loading triggers the resorption and apposition of the bone. Alveolar bone remodeling is expected to follow orthodontic tooth movement in a one-to-one relationship. However, in many cases, the outcomes are different. Alveolar bone might still remain thick causing lip protrusion and other aesthetic problems after treatment. Additional corrective procedures such as alveoloplasty. On the other hand, if the labial bone becomes too thin, periodontal problems like gingival recession might occur. The unpredictability of the treatment result and the risk of requiring corrective procedures pose significant challenges to both the providers and patients. The aim of this study is to determine factors that can help to predict the alveolar bone reaction before maxillary incisor intrusion and retraction. Methods: The cohort included 34 female patients (mean age 25.8 years) who were diagnosed with skeletal class II malocclusion with upper incisor protrusion. These patients underwent extraction and orthodontic treatment with upper incisor intrusion and retraction. Lateral cephalograms at pre-treatment and post-treatment were taken. Linear and angular measurements were analyzed to evaluate the alveolar bone changes based on initial conditions. Results: The study found that the relative change, calculated as change in alveolar bone thickness after treatment divided by the initial alveolar thickness, was inversely correlated with the initial thickness. There was a significant increase of labial alveolar bone thickness at 9-mm apical from cementoenamel junction (B3) (P < 0.05) but no statistically significant change in the thickness at other levels. In addition, the change in angulation between the incisor and alveolar bone was inversely correlated with several initial angulations: between the initial palatal plane and upper incisor angle, between the initial palatal plane and upper incisor labial surface angle, and between the initial palatal plane and bone labial surface angle. On the other hand, the change in labial bone thickness was neither significantly correlated with the initial thickness nor significantly correlated to the amount of retraction. Conclusion: The unpredictability of alveolar bone remodeling after upper incisor intrusion and retraction poses significant challenges to treatment planning and patient experience. The study showed that the initial angulation between the incisor and alveolar bone is correlated with the change in angulation after treatment, the initial thickness of the alveolar bone was correlated with the relative change of the alveolar bone thickness (defined as change in thickness after treatment divided by its initial thickness), and the amount of intrusion was correlated with the alveolar bone thickness change at 9-mm apical from the cementoenamel junction after treatment. The results of the present study also revealed that the change in labial alve...

show abstract

The role of orthodontic tooth movement in bone and root mineral density: A study of patients submitted and not submitted to orthodontic treatment

Cited by 23 publications

References 35 publications

Does Orthodontic Treatment Affect the Alveolar Bone Density?

Does Orthodontic Treatment Affect the Alveolar Bone Density?

Bone mineral density in cone beam computed tomography: Only a few shades of gray

Alveolar bone remodeling during maxillary incisor intrusion and retraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About