The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Apical Root Resorption in Patients Treated with Fixed Orthodontic Appliance and Clear Aligners: A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study

Jyotirmay, Sanjay K Singh, Kumar Adarsh, Amit Kumar, Abhinov R Gupta, Abhishek Sinha

Keywords : Apical root resorption, Clear aligners, Cone-beam computed tomography, Fixed orthodontic appliances

Citation Information : J, Singh SK, Adarsh K, Kumar A, Gupta AR, Sinha A. Comparison of Apical Root Resorption in Patients Treated with Fixed Orthodontic Appliance and Clear Aligners: A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (7):763-768.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3119

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim and objective: To carry out comparison of apical root resorption (ARR) in the fixed orthodontic appliance and clear aligners with the help of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging. Methods and materials: The study was conducted on 576 roots in 110 patients. These patients were divided into two groups such that each group consisted of 55 patients. A total of 288 roots were analyzed in each group. One group consisted of patients treated with the conventional fixed orthodontic appliance. Another group consisted of patients treated with clear aligners. Radiographic images were collected with the help of CBCT for each patient. One image was collected before treatment while another image was collected after treatment. The length of the root of the anterior tooth was measured with the help of CBCT images. The ARR was calculated for each tooth by obtaining the difference between the length of the root measured before orthodontic treatment and after orthodontic treatment. The data were recorded, and statistical analysis was carried out with the help of the paired t test and Chi-square test to compare ARR between the two groups. Results: The ARR was more in patients who were treated with fixed orthodontic treatment than in those patients who were treated with clear aligners. The mean value of ARR in fixed orthodontic appliances was 1.51 ± 1.34 mm, whereas the mean value of ARR in clear aligners was 1.12 ± 1.34 mm. The severity of ARR in the clear aligners group (on average) was significantly less than that in the fixed appliances group (on average). It was found that ARR in each individual\'s tooth included in the study was more in case of the fixed orthodontic appliance as compared with clear aligners (p <0.001). Conclusion: From the present study, it can be concluded that the amount of resorption at the root apex is less among patients who undergo treatment using clear aligners as compared with those treated with conventional fixed orthodontics appliances. Clinical significance: ARR found in the orthodontic treatment is a process that causes loss of hard dental tissues such as dentine and cementum at the root apex. Fixed orthodontic appliances are most common method of orthodontic treatment. However, clear aligners are also used commonly for orthodontic treatment.

PDF Share
  1. Baumrind S, Korn EL, Boyd RL. Apical root resorption in orthodontically treated adults. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;110(3):311–320. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)80016-3.
  2. Brezniak N, Wasserstein A. Orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption. Part I: the basic science aspects. Angle Orthod 2002;72(2):175–179. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0175:OIIRRP> 2.0.CO;2.
  3. Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, et al. Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010;138(6):698.e1–698.e12 [discussion 9]. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.012.
  4. Fujiyama K, Honjo T, Suzuki M, et al. Analysis of pain level in cases treated with Invisalign aligner: comparison with fixed edgewise appliance therapy. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):64. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0064-7.
  5. Mavragani M, Vergari A, Selliseth NJ, et al. A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with a standard edgewise and a straight-wire edgewise technique. Eur J Orthod 2000;22(6):665–674. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/22.6.665.
  6. Almuzian M, Gardner A. Adult Orthodontics Part 2: Advances in Treatment. Ortho Update 2014; 7: 114–117. DOI: 10.12968/ortu.2014.7.4.114.
  7. Apajalahti S, Peltola JS. Apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment -- a retrospective study. Eur J Orthod. 2007 Aug;29(4):408-12. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjm016. Epub 2007 Jul 13. PMID: 17631606.
  8. Krieger E, Drechsler T, Schmidtmann I, et al. Apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment with aligners? A retrospective radiometric study. Head Face Med 2013;9:21. DOI: 10.1186/1746- 160X-9-21.
  9. Castro IO, Alencar AH, Valladares-Neto J, et al. Apical root resorption due to orthodontic treatment detected by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2013;83(2):196–203. DOI: 10.2319/032112-240.1.
  10. Lund H, Grondahl K, Hansen K, et al. Apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment. A prospective study using cone beam CT. Angle Orthod 2012;82(3):480–487. DOI: 10.2319/061311-390.1.
  11. Miethke RR, Brauner K. A comparison of the periodontal health of patients during treatment with the Invisalign® system and with fixed lingual appliances. J Orofac Orthop 2007;68(3):223–231. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-007-0655-8.
  12. Dindaroğlu F, Doğan S. Root Resorption in Orthodontics. Turk J Orthod. 2016 Dec;29(4):103-108. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.16021. Epub 2016 Dec 1. PMID: 30112483; PMCID: PMC6007605.
  13. Sameshima GT, Asgarifar KO. Assessment of root resorption and root shape: periapical vs panoramic films. Angle Orthod 2001;71(3):185–189. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2001)071<0185:AORRAR>2.0.CO;2.
  14. Dudic A, Giannopoulou C, Martinez M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digitized periapical radiographs validated against microcomputed tomography scanning in evaluating orthodontically induced apical root resorption. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116(5):467–472. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00559.x.
  15. Patel S, Dawood A, Wilson R, et al. The detection and management of root resorption lesions using intraoral radiography and cone beam computed tomography—an in vivo investigation. Int Endod J 2009;42(9):831–838. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01592.x.
  16. Estrela C, Bueno MR, De Alencar AH, et al. Method to evaluate inflammatory root resorption by using cone beam computed tomography. J Endod 2009;35(11):1491–1497. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009. 08.009.
  17. Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, et al. The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2004;125(3):270–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.005.
  18. Al-Qawasmi RA, Hartsfield JK Jr, Everett ET, et al. Genetic predisposition to external apical root resorption in orthodontic patients: linkage of chromosome-18 marker. J Dent Res 2003;82(5):356–360. DOI: 10.1177/154405910308200506.
  19. Li Y, Deng S, Mei L, et al. Prevalence and severity of apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and fixed appliances: a cone beam computed tomography study. Prog Orthod 2020;21(1):1. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-019-0301-1.
  20. Gay G, Ravera S, Castroflorio T, et al. Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with Invisalign: a radiometric study. Prog Orthod 2017;18(1):12. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-017-0166-0.
  21. Zheng M, Liu R, Ni Z, et al. Efficiency, effectiveness and treatment stability of clear aligners: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res 2017;20(3):127–133. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12177.
  22. de Almeida MR, Marcal ASB, Fernandes TMF, et al. A comparative study of the effect of the intrusion arch and straight wire mechanics on incisor root resorption: a randomized, controlled trial. Angle Orthod 2018;88(1):20–26. DOI: 10.2319/06417-424R.
  23. Iglesias-Linares A, Sonnenberg B, Solano B, et al. Orthodontically induced external apical root resorption in patients treated with fixed appliances vs removable aligners. Angle Orthod 2017;87(1):3–10. DOI: 10.2319/02016-101.1.
  24. Alqerban A, Jacobs R, Fieuws S, Willems G. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Feb;33(1):93-102. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq034. PMID: 21270321.
  25. Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;133(5):640.e1–640.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.019.
  26. Wen J, Liu S, Ye X, et al. Comparative study of cephalometric measurements using 3 imaging modalities. J Am Dent Assoc 2017;148(12):913–921. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.07.030.
  27. Acar A, Canyürek U, Kocaaga M, Erverdi N. Continuous vs. discontinuous force application and root resorption. Angle Orthod. 1999 Apr;69(2):159-63; discussion 163-4. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0159:CVDFAA>2.3.CO;2. PMID: 10227557.
  28. Kesling HD. The philosophy of the tooth positioning appliance. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1945;31(6):297–304. DOI: 10.1016/0096-6347(45)90101-3.
  29. Owman-Moll P, Kurol J. Root resorption after orthodontic treatment in highand low-risk patients: analysis of allergy as a possible predisposing factor. Eur J Orthod 2000;22(6):657–663. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/22.6.657.
  30. Kaley J, Phillips C. Factors related to root resorption in edgewise practice. Angle Orthod 1991;61(2):125–132. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0125:FRTRRI>2.0.CO;2.
  31. Sharpe W, Reed B. Orthodontic relapse, apical root resorption, and crestal alveolar bone levels. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;91(3):252–258. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90455-0.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.