Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.7)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MNiSW – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2019, vol. 28, nr 2, February, p. 211–218

doi: 10.17219/acem/79974

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Optical coherence tomography as a non-invasive method of enamel thickness diagnosis after orthodontic treatment by 3 different types of brackets

Monika E. Machoy1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Robert Koprowski2,B,C,E,F, Liliana Szyszka-Sommerfeld3,B,F, Krzysztof Safranow4,C,F, Tomasz Gedrange5,E,F, Krzysztof Woźniak3,A,E,F

1 Division of Orthodontics, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Poland

2 Department of Biomedical Computer Systems, Faculty of Computer Science and Materials Science, Institute of Computer Science, University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland

4 Department of Biochemistry and Medical Chemistry, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Poland

5 Division of Orthodontics, Technical University Dresden, Germany

Abstract

Background. Medical digital imaging is the basis of effective medical diagnosis and is now in the mainstream of a dynamically developing branch of science. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) enables real-time in situ imaging of tissues without the need for biopsy, histological procedures or X-rays.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate the application of OCT in orthodontic diagnostics and clinical practice by assessing the thickness of the enamel before and after orthodontic treatment.
Material and Methods. A hundred and eighty teeth in this in vitro study were divided into 3 groups of 60 teeth each. In each group (Group 1 – metal brackets, Group 2 – ceramic brackets and Group 3 – composite brackets), the orthodontic brackets were attached to the enamel using the 5th-generation adhesive system. The image of the enamel tissue was captured with a 3D–OCT camera before installing orthodontic brackets and after debonding and mechanical processing. The obtained OCT scans were subjected to expert IT analysis. For the statistical analysis, the Shapiro-Wilk test, the median test, the Mann-Whitney U test, Friedman 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, the χ2 test of independence with Yates’s correction, and Fisher’s exact test were used. Maxwell’s general principle was followed when using this type of test. The level of significance was set at p = 0.05.
Results. The thickness of the enamel varied least when metal brackets were used. The changes in enamel thickness in the composite and ceramic bracket groups were not statistically significant.
Conclusion. Optical coherence tomography is an effective diagnostic tool to evaluate the thickness of the enamel tissue before and after orthodontic treatment. Changes in the enamel layer thickness after orthodontic treatment are determined by the type of material which the orthodontic bracket is made of.

Key words

tomography, optical coherence, orthodontics, optical coherence tomography, enamel

References (40)

  1. Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, et al. Optical coherence tomography. Science. 1991;254(5035):1178–1181.
  2. Fercher AF, Hitzenberger CK, Drexler W, Kamp G, Sattmann H. In vivo optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophtalmol. 1993;116(1):113–114.
  3. Fercher AF, Hitzenberger CK, Kamp G, El-Zaiat SY. Measurement of intraocular distances by backscattering spectral interferometry. Opt Commun. 1995;117(1-2):30–43.
  4. Simon JC, Kang H, Staninec M, et al. Near-IR and CP-OCT imaging of suspected occlusal caries lesions. Lasers Surg Med. 2017;49(3):215–224.
  5. Maia AM, de Freitas AZ, de L Campello S, Gomes AS, Karlsson L. Evaluation of dental enamel caries assessment using quantitative light induced fluorescence and optical coherence tomography. J Biophotonics. 2016;9(6):596–602.
  6. Horie K, Shimada Y, Matin K, et al. Monitoring of cariogenic demineralization at the enamel–composite interface using swept-source optical coherence tomography. Dent Mater. 2016;32(9):1103–1112.
  7. Damodaran V, Ranga RS, Vasa NJ. Optical coherence tomography based imaging of dental demineralisation and cavity restoration in 840 nm and 1310 nm wavelength regions. Opt Lasers Eng. 2016;59:14.
  8. Adegun OK, Tomlins PH, Hagi-Pavli E, Bader DL, Fortune F. Quantitative optical coherence tomography of fluid-filled oral mucosal lesions. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28(5):1249–55.
  9. Sanda M, Shiota M, Imakita C, Sakuyama A, Kasugai S, Sumi Y. The effectiveness of optical coherence tomography for evaluating peri-implant tissue: A pilot study. Imaging Sci Dent. 2016;46(3):173–178.
  10. Adegun OK, Tomlins PH, Hagi-Pavli E, et al. Quantitative analysis of optical coherence tomography and histopathology images of normal and dysplastic oral mucosal tissues. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27(4):795–804.
  11. Kim SH, Kang SR, Park HJ, Kim JM, Yi WJ, Kim TI. Improved accuracy in periodontal pocket depth measurement using optical coherence tomography. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2017;47(1):13–19.
  12. Fernandes LO, Mota CC, de Melo LS, da Costa Soares MUS, da Silva Feitosa D, Gomes ASL. In vivo assessment of periodontal structures and measurement of gingival sulcus with optical coherence tomography: A pilot study. J Biophotonics. 10(6-7):862–869.
  13. Kim JM, Kang SR, Yi WJ. Automatic detection of tooth cracks in optical coherence tomography images. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2017;47(1):41–50.
  14. Koprowski R, Machoy M, Woźniak K, Wróbel Z. Automatic method of analysis of OCT images in the assessment of the tooth enamel surface after orthodontic treatment with fixed braces. Biomed Eng Online. 2014;13:48.
  15. Algarni A, Kang H, Fried D, Eckert GJ, Hara AT. Enamel thickness determination by optical coherence tomography: In vitro validation. Caries Res. 2016;50(4):400–406.
  16. Seeliger J, Machoy M, Koprowski R, et al. Enamel thickness before and after orthodontic treatment analysed in optical coherence tomography. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:8390575.
  17. Suliman SN, Trojan TM, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A. Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(4):651–656.
  18. Bernard-Granger C, Gebeile-Chauty S. Enamel cracks: Influence of orthodontic process [in French]. Orthod Fr. 2014;85(3):245–251.
  19. Leão Filho JC, Braz AK, de Araujo RE, Tanaka OM, Pithon MM. Enamel quality after debonding: Evaluation by optical coherence tomography. Braz Dent J. 2015;26(4):384–389.
  20. Davis VA, Staley RN, Bigelow HF, Jakobsen JR. Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121(3):291–296.
  21. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126(6):717–724.
  22. Eliades T, Gioka C, Eliades G, Makou M. Enamel surface roughness following debonding using two resin grinding methods. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(3):333–338.
  23. Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS, Ahn HS, Ro JH, Kim YD. Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sandblasting: A 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(1):71–76.
  24. Finke M, Parker DM, Jandt KD. Influence of soft drinks on the thickness and morphology of in situ acquired pellicle layer on enamel. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2002;251(2):263–270.
  25. Watari F. In situ quantitative analysis of etching process of human teeth by atomic force microscopy. J Electron Microsc (Tokyo). 2005;54 (3):299–308.
  26. Mohebi S, Shafiee HA, Ameli N. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after orthodontic bracket debonding with atomic force microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151(3):521–527.
  27. Lorenzo MC, Portillo M, Moreno P, et al. Ultrashort pulsed laser conditioning of human enamel: In vitro study of the influence of geometrical processing parameters on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(2):891-900.
  28. Wilder-Smith CH, Wilder-Smith P, Kawakami-Wong H, Voronets J, Osann K, Lussi A. Quantification of dental erosions in patients with GERD using optical coherence tomography before and after double-blind, randomized treatment with esomeprazole or placebo. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(11):27–88.
  29. Le MH, Darling CL, Fried D. Automated analysis of lesion depth and integrated reflectivity in PS-OCT scans of tooth demineralization. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42(1):42–62.
  30. Oliver RG, Griffiths J. Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding: Time taken and surface enamel appearance. Br J Orthod. 1992;19(2):131–137.
  31. Vidor MM, Felix RP, Marchioro EM, Hahn L. Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(2):61–67.
  32. Faria-Júnior ÉM, Guiraldo RD, Berger SB, et al. In-vivo evaluation of the surface roughness and morphology of enamel after bracket removal and polishing by different techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147(3):324–329.
  33. Fan XC, Chen L, Huang XF. Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: An in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):58.
  34. Al Shamsi AH, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E. Three-dimensional measurement of residual adhesive and enamel loss on teeth after debonding of orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(3):301e9–e15.
  35. Wang LV, Wu HI. Biomedical Optics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
  36. Baek JH, Na J, Lee BH, Choi E, Son WS. Optical approach to the periodontal ligament under orthodontic tooth movement: A preliminary study with optical coherence tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(2):252–259.
  37. Garcez AS, Suzuki SS, Ribeiro MS, Mada EY, Freitas AZ, Suzuki H. Biofilm retention by 3 methods of ligation on orthodontic brackets: A microbiologic and optical coherence tomography analysis. Am Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(4):e193–198.
  38. Pithon MM, Santos Mariana de J, de Souza CA, et al. Effectiveness of fluoride sealant in the prevention of carious lesions around orthodontic brackets: An OCT evaluation. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20 (6):37–42.
  39. Nee A, Chan K, Kang H, Staninec M, Darling CL, Fried D. Longitudinal monitoring of demineralization peripheral to orthodontic brackets using cross polarization optical coherence tomography. J Dent. 2014;42(5):547–555.
  40. Leão Filho JC, Braz AK, de Souza TR, de Araujo RE, Pithon MM, Tanaka OM. Optical coherence tomography for debonding evaluation: An in-vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(1):61–68.