Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
273 Letters to the Editor European Journal of Orthodontics 35 (2013) 273 doi:10.1093/ejo/cjs064 Advance Access publication 8 November 2012 Association between root resorption incident to orthodontic treatment and treatment factors Sir, We read with interest the article about the association between root resorption and orthodontics by Motokawa et al. (2012). The prevalence and degree of root resorption induced by orthodontic treatment in association with treatment factors was well described by the authors. The results of their study indicated that orthodontic treatments with extractions, long-term use of a multiloop edgewise arch-wire appliance and elastics, treatment time, and distance of tooth movement are risk factors for severe root resorption. However, there are some limitations in the material and method section that we want to draw attention. In addition, the factors that might affect the root resorption have not been completely discussed. As stated in the literature (Weltman et al., 2010), patientrelated and external factors are believed to be associated with increased root resorption. Patient-related factors (Weltman et al., 2010) such as genetic predisposition, root shape, endodontic treatment, alveolar bone density, oral habits, trauma, age, gender, and the severity and type of the malocclusion should be considered when planning study about root resorption. The subjects included in their study were orthodontically treated patients aged 9–51 prior to the treatment (mean age: 18.9 ± 6.7 years). According to Mirabella and Artun (1995), the resorption pattern might be more extreme in adults, and a higher proportion may be severely affected. Since age is an important factor that might affect the amount of root resorption (Mirabella and Artun, 1995; Jiang et al., 2010), this wide age range present in their study should be checked for the efficiency on root resorption by means of multiple logistic regression analysis as previously done by several authors (Artun et al., 2005). It might be better to see age and sex distribution of the patients in the subgroups they investigated. In the discussion section of the article, many factors have been described to have possible affects on root resorption. However, information about the presence of endodontic treatment and developmental anomalies was not present in the article. In addition, patient-related factors such as sex and age should also be discussed in the text. Thus, we think that readers of European Journal of Orthodontics might consider these factors while reading this article. Mevlüt Çelikoğlu*, Koray Halıcıoğlu** and Murat Çağlaroğlu*** *Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, **Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Izzet Baysal University, Bolu and ***Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kirikkale, Trabzon, Turkey References Artun J, Smale I, Behbehani F, Doppel D, Van't Hof M, Kuijpers-Jagtman A M 2005 Apical root resorption six and 12 months after initiation of fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. The Angle Orthodontics 75: 919–926 Jiang R P, McDonald J P, Fu M K 2010 Root resorption before and after orthodontic treatment: a clinical study of contributory factors. Europen Journal of Orthodontics 32: 693–697 Mirabella A D, Artun J 1995 Prevalence and severity of apical root resorption of maxillary anterior teeth in adult orthodontic patients. European Journal of Orthodontics 17: 93–99 Motokawa M, Sasamoto T, Kaku M, Kawata T, Matsuda Y, Terao A, Tanne K 2012 Association between root resorption incident to orthodontic treatment and treatment factors. European Journal of Orthodontics 34: 350–356 Weltman B, Vig K W, Fields H W, Shanker S, Kaizar E E 2010 Root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 137: 462–476 European Journal of Orthodontics 35 (2013) 273–274 doi:10.1093/ejo/cjs077 Advance Access publication 11 August 2012 Reply Sir, We thank Dr Çelikoğlu et al. for their interest in our study. I would like to answer the comment about the age of patients in this study. As you mentioned in your letter, patient-related factors such as genetic predisposition, root shape, endodontic treatment, alveolar bone density, oral habits, trauma, age, gender, and the severity and type of the malocclusion are important risk factors of root resorption. Particularly that the initial 274 age of orthodontically treated patients in our report has a wide range and should be checked against root resorption. In view of this comment, statistical analysis for the association between initial age of patients and root resorption was performed by chi-square test and simple regression analyses. The subjects were classified into three groups based on their age when active treatment was initiated: T1, <15 years (n = 70 patients, 1885 teeth); T2, ≥15 years, <20 years (n = 89 patients, 2341 teeth); and T3, ≥20 years (n = 84 patients, 2195 teeth). Statistical differences in the prevalence of root resorption evaluated by the number of patients and teeth were examined by use of a chi-square test, and the association between initial age of patients and the number of teeth with overall or severe root resorption was evaluated by a simple regression analysis (Statview, Abacus Concepts, Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA). The level of significance was set at 0.05. The simple regression analysis revealed no association of the age of patients with overall or severe root resorption (P = 0.18 or 0.053, respectively). On the other hand, chi-square test revealed no significant differences in the prevalence of overall root resorption. Meanwhile, Letters to the Editor the prevalence of severe root resorption evaluated by the number of teeth was significantly higher in T3 group than in T1 and T2 groups (teeth; T1 versus T2: P = 0.59, T2 versus T3: P = 0.0001, and T1 versus T3: P = 0.001, respectively). These results have demonstrated no significant differences in the prevalence of overall root resorption among these different age groups, although the prevalence of severe root resorption is higher in the older group. Sincerely yours, Masahide Motokawa Tomoko Sasamoto Masato Kaku Toshitsugu Kawata Yayoi Matsuda Akiko Terao Kazuo Tanne Department of Orthodontics Applied Life Sciences Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences Hiroshima University Japan