Comparison of the impact of orthodontic treatment on pulp volume in adolescents and adults
10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20230901-00129
- VernacularTitle:正畸治疗对青少年和成人牙髓体积影响的比较研究
- Author:
Man JIANG
1
;
Huanzhuo ZHAO
;
Jianxia LI
;
Tianci ZHANG
;
Wenjie XU
;
Xiang LI
;
Leilei ZHENG
Author Information
1. 重庆医科大学附属口腔医院正畸科 口腔疾病与生物医学重庆市重点实验室 重庆市高校市级口腔生物医学工程重点实验室，重庆 401147
- Keywords:
Dental pulp;
Orthodontics;
Root resorption;
Cone-beam computed tomography;
Adolescent
- From:
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2024;59(2):149-156
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the impact of orthodontic treatment on pulp volume in adolescents and adults.Methods:Cone-beam CT data of 62 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment at the Department of Orthodontics, Stomatological Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, from January 2019 to March 2022 were collected. Patients were divided into two age groups (31 patients in each group): adolescent group (aged 13-17, 17 males and 14 females) and adult group (aged 21-25, 12 males and 19 females). Pre-and post-treatment reconstructions of the pulp and dental tissues of upper first molars (UM1) and lower central incisors (L1) were performed. Measurements included pulp volume for UM1 (UM1 P) and L1 (L1 P), pulp chamber volume (UM1 PC) and root canal volume (UM1 RC) for UM1, root length for L1 (L1 RL), and mesiobuccal root length for UM1 (UM1 RL), as well as chamber heights at specific landmarks [the lengths from the central fossa fusion site to the roof of the pulp chamber (H1), the floor of the pulp chamber (H2), the nearest point of root divergence as well as crown-root bifurcation (H3), the farthest point of root divergence (H4), and the pulp chamber height (H5)] in UM1. Changes in these indices were calculated and analyzed using paired and independent sample t-tests for within-group and between-group differences, respectively. Pearson correlation was used to assess potential associations among H5, root length, and pulp volume changes. Results:Before and after orthodontic treatment, no significant difference was observed in the adult group for L1 P ( t=-0.03, P=0.975), while significant differences were noted for UM1 P, UM1 PC, and UM1 RC ( t=9.98, P<0.001; t=9.04, P<0.001; t=6.69, P<0.001). In the adolescent group, significant differences were found for both L1 P and UM1 P ( t=2.25, P=0.029; t=6.30, P<0.001). After orthodontic treatment, the absolute value changes of UM1 P, UM1 PC, and L1 P in the adolescent group were (19.75±9.58), (15.07±7.65) and (1.89±6.29) mm 3, respectively, and in the adult group were (13.33±9.41), (9.16±7.05) and (0.02±4.66) mm 3, respectively ( t=3.77, P<0.001; t=4.48, P<0.001; t=2.34, P=0.048). There was no significant absolute difference in the amount of UM1 RC between the two groups after orthodontic treatment ( t=0.86, P=0.391). Before and after orthodontic treatment, the absolute value changes of L1 RL, H1 and H5 in the adolescent group were (0.54±0.41), (0.38±0.27) and (0.71±0.33) mm, respectively, and the absolute value changes in the adult group were (0.78±0.62), (0.26±0.20) and (0.57±0.28) mm, respectively ( t=-2.43, P=0.017; t=2.96, P=0.004; t=2.57, P=0.011). Whereas no significant differences were observed for UM1 RL, H2, H3, and H4 ( t=-0.85, P=0.400; t=0.43, P=0.669; t=-0.50, P=0.619; t=1.46, P=0.148). Additionally, significant correlations were found between changes in H5 and UM1 RL with UM1 P ( r=0.35, P<0.001; r=0.19, P=0.030), but not between Changes in L1 RL and L1 P ( r=0.11, P>0.05). Conclusions:The effect of orthodontic treatment on pulp volume in adolescents and adults were different.
