Periodontal health in patients under conventional and lingual orthodontic therapies
Saúde periodontal em pacientes sob tratamentos ortodônticos convencional e lingual
Tapia-Rivera, José Gonzalo; Cotrim-Ferreira, Andréia; Borelli-Neto, Laurindo; Prieto, Marcos Gabriel; Ferreira-Santos, Rívea Inês
Abstract
Objective: Some clinical periodontal health parameters were assessed comparatively in patients using conventional and lingual brackets. Material and method: A trained examiner registered the frequencies of visible plaque (VP), bleeding on probing (BOP), as well as the simplified oral hygiene (OHI-S) and modified gingival (MGI) indices in 83 subjects from two clinics. The effects of orthodontic treatments on periodontal health were analyzed using logistic regression (α = 0.05). Result: In the conventional group, the frequency of visible plaque was significantly higher on the buccal surfaces of anterior (OR = 12.5) and maxillary posterior (OR = 3.6) teeth, p < 0.01. BOP in posterior teeth was also more frequent in this group, p < 0.05. The lingual group presented higher frequency of visible plaque on the lingual surfaces of anterior teeth (OR = 4.3; p = 0.0034). The conventional group had significantly higher frequencies of mild gingivitis in the buccal regions of anterior (OR = 9.0) and maxillary posterior (OR = 16.7) teeth, p < 0.05, and anterior papillae (OR = 9.0; p = 0.0003). On the other hand, the lingual group evidenced mild gingivitis more often in the lingual regions of anterior teeth (OR = 54.5), p < 0.01. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the clinical periodontal health conditions may be considered acceptable for patients using both conventional and lingual brackets.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: Alguns parâmetros clínicos de saúde periodontal foram avaliados comparativamente em pacientes que utilizavam braquetes convencionais e linguais. Material e método: Um examinador treinado registrou as frequências de placa bacteriana visível (PB) e sangramento à sondagem (SS), bem como dos índices higiene oral simplificado (IHO-S) e gengival modificado (IGM), em 83 pacientes de duas clínicas. Os efeitos dos tratamentos ortodônticos na saúde periodontal foram analisados por regressão logística (α=0,05). Resultado: No grupo convencional, a frequência de placa bacteriana foi significativamente mais elevada nas superfícies vestibulares dos dentes anteriores (OR = 12,5) e posteriores superiores (OR = 3,6), p < 0,01. O SS nos dentes posteriores também foi mais frequente neste grupo, p < 0,05. O grupo lingual apresentou frequência mais alta de placa bacteriana nas superfícies linguais dos dentes anteriores (OR = 4,3; p = 0,0034). O grupo convencional apresentou frequências significativamente elevadas de gengivite leve nas regiões vestibulares dos dentes anteriores (OR = 9,0) e posteriores superiores (OR = 16,7), p < 0,05, e de papilas anteriores (OR = 9,0 p = 0,0003). Por outro lado, o grupo lingual evidenciou gengivite leve mais frequentemente nas superfícies linguais dos dentes anteriores (OR = 54,5), p < 0,01. Conclusão: Com base nos resultados deste estudo, as condições clínicas de saúde periodontal podem ser consideradas razoáveis em pacientes que utilizavam braquetes convencionais e linguais.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Sfondrini MF, Debiaggi M, Zara F, Brerra R, Comelli M, Bianchi M, et al. Influence of lingual bracket position on microbial and periodontal parameters in vivo. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012 May-June;20(3):357-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572012000300011. PMid:22858704.
2. van Gastel J, Quirynen M, Teughels W, Coucke W, Carels C. Longitudinal changes in microbiology and clinical periodontal variables after placement of fixed orthodontic appliances. J Periodontol. 2008 Nov;79(11):2078-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080153. PMid:18980516.
3. Diamanti-Kipioti A, Gusberti FA, Lang NP. Clinical and microbiological effects of fixed orthodontic appliances. J Clin Periodontol. 1987 July;14(6):326-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1987.tb00979.x. PMid:3509967.
4. Hohoff A, Stamm T, Kühne N, Wiechmann D, Haufe S, Lippold C, et al. Effects of a mechanical interdental cleaning device on oral hygiene in patients with lingual brackets. Angle Orthod. 2003 Oct;73(5):579-87. PMid:14580027.
5. Caniklioglu C, Oztürk Y. Patient discomfort: a comparison between lingual and labial fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2005 Jan;75(1):86-91. PMid:15747820.
6. Hohoff A, Stamm T, Goder G, Sauerland C, Ehmer U, Seifert E. Comparison of 3 bonded lingual appliances by auditive analysis and subjective assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Dec;124(6):737-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.022. PMid:14666090.
7. Hohoff A, Seifert E, Fillion D, Stamm T, Heinecke A, Ehmer U. Speech performance in lingual orthodontic patients measured by sonagraphy and auditive analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Feb;123(2):146-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.12. PMid:12594420.
8. Hohoff A, Fillion D, Stamm T, Goder G, Sauerland C, Ehmer U. Oral comfort, function and hygiene in patients with lingual brackets. A prospective longitudinal study. J Orofac Orthop. 2003 Sept;64(5):359-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00056-003-0307-6. PMid:14692050.
9. Sinclair PM, Cannito MF, Goates LJ, Solomos LF, Alexander CM. Patient responses to lingual appliances. J Clin Orthod. 1986 June;20(6):396-404. PMid:3461002.
10. Årtun J. A post treatment evaluation of multibonded lingual appliances in orthodontics. Eur J Orthod. 1987 Aug;9(3):204-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/9.3.204. PMid:3311772.
11. Demling A, Demling C, Schwestka-Polly R, Stiesch M, Heuer W. Short-term influence of lingual orthodontic therapy on microbial parameters and periodontal status: a preliminary study. Angle Orthod. 2010 May;80(3):480-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/061109-330.1. PMid:20050740.
12. Demling A, Demling C, Schwestka-Polly R, Stiesch M, Heuer W. Influence of lingual orthodontic therapy on microbial parameters and periodontal status in adults. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Dec;31(6):638-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp064. PMid:19687149.
13. Zanatta FB, Moreira CH, Rösing CK. Association between dental floss use and gingival conditions in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Dec;140(6):812-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.028. PMid:22133946.
14. Greene JC, Vermillion JR. The simplified oral hygiene index. J Am Dent Assoc. 1964 Jan;68(1):7-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1964.0034. PMid:14076341.
15. Lobene RR, Weatherford T, Ross NM, Lamm RA, Menaker L. A modified gingival index for use in clinical trials. Clin Prev Dent. 1986 Jan-Feb;8(1):3-6. PMid:3485495.
16. Ainamo J, Bay I. Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J. 1975 Dec;25(4):229-35. PMid:1058834.
17. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000.
18. Demidenko E. Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited. Stat Med. 2007 Aug;26(18):3385-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.2771. PMid:17149799.
19. Stamm T, Hohoff A, Ehmer U. A subjective comparison of two lingual bracket systems. Eur J Orthod. 2005 Aug;27(4):420-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji034. PMid:16043479.
20. Auschill TM, Hellwig E, Sculean A, Hein N, Arweiler NB. Impact of the intraoral location on the rate of biofilm growth. Clin Oral Investig. 2004 June;8(2):97-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-004-0255-6. PMid:14986070.
21. Demling A, Heuer W, Elter C, Heidenblut T, Bach FW, Schwestka-Polly R, et al. Analysis of supra- and subgingival long-term biofilm formation on orthodontic bands. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Apr;31(2):202-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn090. PMid:19304761.
22. Ristic M, Svabic MV, Sasic M, Zelic O. Clinical and microbiological effects of fixed orthodontic appliances on periodontal tissues in adolescents. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007 Nov;10(4):187-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00396.x. PMid:17973685.
23. Naranjo AA, Triviño ML, Jaramillo A, Betancourth M, Botero JE. Changes in the subgingival microbiota and periodontal parameters before and 3 months after bracket placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Sept;130(3):275.e17-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.022. PMid:16979483.
24. Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, McLeod J, Covell DA Jr, Maier T, et al. Plaque retention by self-ligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4):426.e1-9, discussion 426-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.018. PMid:19361723.
25. Alexander SA. Effects of orthodontic attachments on the gingival health of permanent second molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991 Oct;100(4):337-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70071-4. PMid:1927984.
26. Erbe C, Hornikel S, Schmidtmann I, Wehrbein H. Quantity and distribution of plaque in orthodontic patients treated with molar bands. J Orofac Orthop. 2011 Mar;72(1):13-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00056-010-0001-4. PMid:21484542.
27. Klukowska M, Bader A, Erbe C, Bellamy P, White DJ, Anastasia MK, et al. Plaque levels of patients with fixed orthodontic appliances measured by digital plaque image analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 May;139(5):e463-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.05.019. PMid:21536188.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email