Yongfang Feng, Rong Wang, Yumin Zhou, Shengnan Zhan
{"title":"Impact of fixed appliance treatment on root resorption in root canal-treated teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Yongfang Feng, Rong Wang, Yumin Zhou, Shengnan Zhan","doi":"10.2340/aos.v84.43642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The relationship between orthodontic treatment and root resorption in endodontically treated teeth remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of fixed appliance treatment on root resorption in root canal-treated teeth compared to vital teeth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Sinomed, CNKI, and Wanfang. Studies comparing root resorption between root canal-treated teeth and vital teeth during orthodontic treatment were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies involving 266 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall effect showed no significant difference in root resorption between root canal-treated teeth and vital teeth (SMD = -0.08, 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.08, I² = 7.0%). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences based on measurement methods, extraction versus non-extraction treatment, or tooth position. However, extraction cases demonstrated a numerical trend toward greater root resorption in root canal-treated teeth (SMD = -0.70, 95% CI: -1.50 to 0.11, I² = 67.1%, p = 0.048), while the non-extraction group showed no meaningful differences (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.28, I² = 49.2%, p = 0.096).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that root canal-treated teeth do not show significantly different root resorption patterns compared to vital teeth during orthodontic treatment. However, extraction cases may require careful monitoring due to a tendency toward increased root resorption.</p>","PeriodicalId":7313,"journal":{"name":"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica","volume":"84 ","pages":"275-283"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v84.43642","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The relationship between orthodontic treatment and root resorption in endodontically treated teeth remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of fixed appliance treatment on root resorption in root canal-treated teeth compared to vital teeth.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Sinomed, CNKI, and Wanfang. Studies comparing root resorption between root canal-treated teeth and vital teeth during orthodontic treatment were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models.
Results: Ten studies involving 266 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall effect showed no significant difference in root resorption between root canal-treated teeth and vital teeth (SMD = -0.08, 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.08, I² = 7.0%). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences based on measurement methods, extraction versus non-extraction treatment, or tooth position. However, extraction cases demonstrated a numerical trend toward greater root resorption in root canal-treated teeth (SMD = -0.70, 95% CI: -1.50 to 0.11, I² = 67.1%, p = 0.048), while the non-extraction group showed no meaningful differences (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.28, I² = 49.2%, p = 0.096).
Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that root canal-treated teeth do not show significantly different root resorption patterns compared to vital teeth during orthodontic treatment. However, extraction cases may require careful monitoring due to a tendency toward increased root resorption.