Association between genetic variants in key vitamin-D-pathway genes and external apical root resorption linked to orthodontic treatment.

This study evaluated the association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in vitamin-D-related genes and the amount of external apical root resorption linked to orthodontic treatment. One hundred and forty-three individuals were assessed. The amount of external apical root resorption of upper central incisors (EARRinc ) and lower first molars (EARRmol ) were evaluated in radiographs. Seven SNPs were genotyped across four genes including the vitamin D receptor [VDR], group-specific component [GC], cytochrome P450 family 27 subfamily B member 1 [CYP27B1], and cytochrome P450 family 24 subfamily A member 1 [CYP24A1]. Linear regressions were implemented to determine allele-effects on external apical root resorption. Individuals carrying the AA genotype in VDR rs2228570 had a 21% higher EARRmol than those having AG and GG genotypes (95% CI: 1.03,1.40). EARRmol in heterozygous rs2228570, was 12% lower than for homozygotes (95%CI: 0.78,0.99). Participants with the CCG haplotype (rs1544410-rs7975232-rs731236) in VDR had an EARRmol 16% lower than those who did not carry this haplotype. Regarding CYP27B1 rs4646536, EARRinc in participants who had at least one G allele was 42% lower than for homozygotes AA (95%CI: 0.37,0.93). Although these results did not remain significant after multiple testing adjustment, potential associations may still be suggested. Further replication studies are needed to confirm or refute these findings.

Post-treatment changes in permanent retention.

OBJECTIVES: While permanent retention is today the method of choice to stabilize orthodontic treatment outcomes, recent studies have increasingly reported posttreatment changes in tooth position during permanent retention. We conducted this study to analyze changes in the anterior mandible, whether the changes follow an underlying movement pattern, and, aiming for a preventive strategy, whether any risk factors could be identified comparing findings with the pretreatment situations. METHODS: We included 30 patients who had worn fixed Twistflex retainers (UK 3-3) extending from canine to canine in the mandible. Casts reflecting the intraoral situations before orthodontic treatment (T0), directly after completion of active therapy (T1), and 6 months later (T2) were scanned and superimposed using Imageware Surfacer software. Posttreatment changes (T2-T1) of tooth position within the retainer block were analyzed on 3D virtual models and were compared to pretreatment (T0) and treatment-related (T1-T0) findings to identify potential risk factors. RESULTS: Almost all analyzed patients revealed three-dimensional changes in tooth position within the retainer block. Comparing these movements, we repeatedly found rotated retainer blocks in labio-oral direction, while the center of rotation was located at the first incisors. This pattern was associated with intercanine expansion and excessive overjet correction during orthodontic treatment. The canines underwent the most pronounced (rotational and translational) movements. CONCLUSIONS: In general permanent lingual retainers are safe but in special clinical cases retainers can induce undesired tooth movement. Risk factors seem to be intercanine expansion and excessive overjet correction during orthodontic treatment. In specific cases an additional retention device might be needed.