Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The prevalence of approximal caries in patients after fixed orthodontic treatment and in untreated subjects

A retrospective, cross-sectional study on bitewing radiographs

Die Prävalenz approximaler kariöser Läsionen bei Patienten nach festsitzender kieferorthopädischer Behandlung und bei unbehandelten Probanden

Eine retrospektive Querschnittsstudie mittels Bitewing-Röntgenbildern

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this retrospective, cross-sectional study was to investigate the prevalence of approximal carious lesions in patients after fixed multibracket therapy and in subjects without orthodontics on bitewing radiographs.

Material and methods

Bitewing radiographs of 104 orthodontically treated patients with fixed multibracket appliances were compared to those of 111 untreated subjects. The individuals in both groups were between 15 and 16.25 years of age when radiographs were taken. The test group with orthodontics was recruited from the archive of the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Zürich. The untreated control group was selected randomly from 16 communities in the Canton of Zürich. The approximal surfaces of the permanent premolars and molars of all subjects were assessed by two calibrated investigators.

Results

The average number of enamel lesions in the test group after fixed orthodontic treatment was lower than in the control group (0.57 vs. 1.85, p < 0.001). The same was found for dentin lesions (0.06 vs. 0.49, p < 0.001). The distribution of lesions was similar in both groups.

Conclusion

Fewer approximal carious lesions were detected in the test group after fixed multibracket appliances than in the age-matched control group without orthodontic treatment.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund und Ziel

Das Ziel dieser retrospektiven Querschnittsstudie war es, mit Hilfe von Bissflügelaufnahmen die Prävalenz von approximalen kariösen Läsionen bei Patienten nach festsitzender kieferorthopädischer Behandlung und Patienten ohne kieferorthopädische Behandlung zu vergleichen.

Material und Methodik

Bitewing-Röntgenbilder von 104 mit festsitzenden kieferorthopädischen Apparaturen behandelten Patienten wurden mit denen von 111 unbehandelten Probanden verglichen. Zum Zeitpunkt der Röntgenaufnahmen waren die Jugendlichen beider Gruppen zwischen 15 und 16,25 Jahre alt. Die kieferorthopädische Testgruppe wurde aus dem Archiv der Klinik für Kieferorthopädie der Universität Zürich ausgewählt. Die unbehandelte Kontrollgruppe wurde randomisiert aus 16 Gemeinden des Kantons Zürich zusammengestellt. Die approximalen Flächen der permanenten Prämolaren und Molaren wurden durch zwei kalibrierte Untersucher beurteilt.

Resultate

Die durchschnittliche Anzahl der Schmelzläsionen in der Testgruppe nach festsitzender kieferorthopädischer Behandlung war niedriger als in der Kontrollgruppe (0,57 vs. 1,85, p < 0,001). Dasselbe wurde auch für Dentinläsionen gefunden (0,06 vs. 0,49, p < 0,001). Die Verteilung der Läsionen war in beiden Gruppen vergleichbar.

Schlussfolgerungen

In der Testgruppe nach Behandlung mit festsitzenden Apparaturen wurden weniger approximale kariöse Läsionen als in der gleichaltrigen Kontrollgruppe ohne Kieferorthopädie gefunden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Atack NE, Sandy JR, Addy M (1996) Periodontal and microbiological changes associated with the placement of orthodontic appliances. A review. J Periodontol 67:78–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baeshen H, Kjellberg H, Birkhed D (2010) Oral fluoride retention in orthodontic patients with and without fixed appliances after using different fluoridated home-care products. Acta Odontol Scand 68:185–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boersma JG, Veen MH van der, Lagerweij MD et al (2005) Caries prevalence measured with QLF after treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances: influencing factors. Caries Res 39:41–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Broadbent JM, Williams KB, Thomson WM et al (2006) Dental restorations: a risk factor for periodontal attachment loss? J Clin Periodontol 33:803–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chang HS, Walsh LJ, Freer TJ (1999) The effect of orthodontic treatment on salivary flow, pH, buffer capacity, and levels of mutans streptococci and lactobacilli. Aust Orthod J 15:229–234

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Clerehugh V, Williams P, Shaw WC et al (1998) A practice-based randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of an electric and a manual toothbrush on gingival health in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. J Dent 26:633–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. da Silva RP, Assaf AV, Pereira SM et al (2011) Reproducibility of adjunct techniques for diagnosis of dental caries in an epidemiological situation. Oral Health Prev Dent 9:251–259

    Google Scholar 

  8. da Silva RP, Assaf AV, Pereira SM et al (2011) Validity of caries-detection methods under epidemiological setting. Am J Dent 24:363–366

    Google Scholar 

  9. Falk Kieri C, Twetman S, Stecksen-Blicks C (2009) Use of radiography in public dental care for children and adolescents in northern Sweden. Swed Dent J 33:141–148

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ (1982) Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod 81:93–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heasman PA, MacGregor ID, Wilson Z et al (1998) Toothbrushing forces in children with fixed orthodontic appliances. Br J Orthod 25:187–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Held U (2010) Study designs and how to use them properly [Article in German]. Swiss Medical Forum 41:712–714

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hickman J, Millett DT, Sander L et al (2002) Powered vs manual tooth brushing in fixed appliance patients: a short term randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 72:135–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hollender L, Ronnerman A (1978) Proximal caries progression in connection with orthodontic treatment. Swed Dent J 2:153–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hujoel P, Hollender L, Bollen AM et al (2006) Radiographs associated with one episode of orthodontic therapy. J Dent Educ 70:1061–1065

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kerbusch AE, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Mulder J et al (2012) Methods used for prevention of white spot lesion development during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Acta Odontol Scand (Early Online)

  17. Kidd EA, Pitts NB (1990) A reappraisal of the value of the bitewing radiograph in the diagnosis of posterior approximal caries. Br Dent J 169:195–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu J, Bian Z, Fan M et al (2004) Typing of mutans streptococci by arbitrarily primed PCR in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Caries Res 38:523–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Machiulskiene V, Nyvad B, Baelum V (2004) Comparison of diagnostic yields of clinical and radiographic caries examinations in children of different age. Eur J Paediatr Dent 5:157–162

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marthaler TM, Steiner M, Menghini G et al (1994) Caries prevalence in Switzerland. Int Dent J 44:393–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mitchell L (1992) Decalcification during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances—an overview. Br J Orthod 19:199–205

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moberg Skold U, Petersson LG, Lith A et al (2005) Effect of school-based fluoride varnish programmes on approximal caries in adolescents from different caries risk areas. Caries Res 39:273–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ogaard B, Rolla G, Arends J (1988) Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 94:68–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Peers A, Hill FJ, Mitropoulos CM et al (1993) Validity and reproducibility of clinical examination, fibre-optic transillumination, and bite-wing radiology for the diagnosis of small approximal carious lesions: an in vitro study. Caries Res 27:307–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pontual AA, Melo DP de, Almeida SM de et al (2010) Comparison of digital systems and conventional dental film for the detection of approximal enamel caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39:431–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sandham HJ, Nadeau L, Phillips HI (1992) The effect of chlorhexidine varnish treatment on salivary mutans streptococcal levels in child orthodontic patients. J Dent Res 71:32–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schatzle M, Imfeld T, Sener B et al (2009) In vitro tooth cleaning efficacy of manual toothbrushes around brackets. Eur J Orthod 31:103–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schatzle M, Sener B, Schmidlin PR et al (2010) In vitro tooth cleaning efficacy of electric toothbrushes around brackets. Eur J Orthod 32:481–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shafi I (2008) Fluoride varnish reduces white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment. Evid Based Dent 9:81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shannon IL, Miller JT (1972) Caries risk in teeth with orthodonic bands: a review. J Acad Gen Dent 20:24–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sjogren P, Halling A (2002) Survival time of Class II molar restorations in relation to patient and dental health insurance costs for treatment. Swed Dent J 26:59–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stadelmann P, Zemp E, Weiss C et al (2012) Dental visits, oral hygiene behaviour, and orthodontic treatment in Switzerland. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 122:104–111

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stecksen-Blicks C, Renfors G, Oscarson ND et al (2007) Caries-preventive effectiveness of a fluoride varnish: a randomized controlled trial in adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances. Caries Res 41:455–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Steiner M, Menghini G, Marthaler TM et al (2010) Changes in dental caries in Zürich school-children over a period of 45 years. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 120:1084–1104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Stephen KW, Russell JI, Creanor SL et al (1987) Comparison of fibre optic transillumination with clinical and radiographic caries diagnosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 15:90–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Thienpont V, Dermaut LR, Van Maele G (2001) Comparative study of 2 electric and 2 manual toothbrushes in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 120:353–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Turkkahraman H, Sayin MO, Bozkurt FY et al (2005) Archwire ligation techniques, microbial colonization, and periodontal status in orthodontically treated patients. Angle Orthod 75:231–236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zachrisson BU (1976) Cause and prevention of injuries to teeth and supporting structures during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 69:285–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zachrisson BU, Zachrisson S (1971) Caries incidence and orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Scand J Dent Res 79:183–192

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Plattenstr. 11, 8032, Zürich, Switzerland

    S. Baumgartner

  2. Preventive Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    G. Menghini & T. Imfeld

Authors
  1. S. Baumgartner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Menghini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Imfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Baumgartner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baumgartner, S., Menghini, G. & Imfeld, T. The prevalence of approximal caries in patients after fixed orthodontic treatment and in untreated subjects. J Orofac Orthop 74, 64–72 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0111-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0111-2

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation