Factors affecting dental status of adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment with bracket systems

Relevance. Today, orthodontic treatment of malocclusion in adolescence is quite common. However, this does not indicate the quality of the treatment, as insufficient hygiene of the mouth and fixed orthodontic appliances leads to a number of complications. Bracket systems have multiple retention points, due to which food debris accumulates in large quantities around locks, hooks, springs, arches and other elements used in fixed orthodontic structures and is poorly cleaned [1]. The existing increased risk of complications, such as superficial demineralization of enamel, which develops in middle, and then deep caries, inflammatory periodontal diseases, requires adequate preventive measures. Low hygienic culture and lack of motivation to care for medical equipment further complicate the dental situation in adolescents [2, 3].

Purpose. To study the dental status and factors influencing it in adolescents who are treating malocclusion with fixed orthodontic appliances.

Materials and methods. The study involved 60 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, which were divided into 2 age groups 12-14 and 15-18 years. Surveys were conducted, during which the prevalence of caries and intensity were determined by the KPU index. We studied the indicators of the Green-Vermillion hygiene index simplified (OHI-S) (Green, Vermillion, 1964) and, based on the results obtained, we calculated the cleaning effect, enamel resistance test V.R. Okushko (1984) and remineralizing efficacy, papillary-marginal alveolar index (РМА, Schour, Massler, 1948), based on the obtained results of the РМА index, determined the anti-inflammatory efficacy, Ulitovsky Hygienic Knowledge Index and based on this index established the survival of hygienic knowledge in adolescents. Along with this, data were copied from outpatient records of dental patients, form 043 / y.

Results. As a result of the study, digital indicators of the Green – Vermillion indexes in the groups and the parameter of the cleaning effect, which was equal to 51.04 ± 4.87% in the second group, were established. The values of the TER test in adolescents of the first group at the beginning of the survey were 3.00 ± 0.45, in the second – 4.00 ± 0.51. By the end of the study, the PMA index values in the two groups were 8.03 ± 1.12% and 23.95 ± 2.31% in the first and second groups, respectively (p < 0,05). The index of hygienic knowledge decreased by the 4th week to 4.30 ± 0.91 and 6.73 ± 1.68 in the first and second groups, respectively.

Conclusions. The obtained results determine the need to improve the quality of dental health for this contingent, through dental education and improve hygiene procedures.

children's dentistry, orthodontics, braces, prevention

1. M. O. Lee, E. J. Lee. Effects of adolescent and Oral health-related characteristics on dental caries. The Korean Journal of Health Service Management. 2018;12(2):101-112. https://doi.org/10.12811/kshsm.2018.12.2.101.

2. E. V. Ekimov, A. A. Smetanin. Increase of preventive care effectiveness of childhood dental caries with the use of remineralizing agents (the literary review). Pediatric dentistry and dental prophylaxis. 2018;18(30):18-22. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25636/PMP.3.2018.3.3.

3. S. B. Ulitovskiy, E. S. Alekseeva, O. V. Kalinina. Oral hygiene products as a dental health motivation. Periodontology. 2011;2:65-66. (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=16727614.

4. P. A. Leus, L. P. Kiselnikova, T. N. Terekhova. Assessment of caries risk factors among school-age children by comparing EGOHID scores in Minsk and Moscow. Stomatology. 2017;96(4):52-57 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201796452-57.

5. S. B. Ulitovskiy, E. S. Alekseeva, A. A. Vasjanina. Periodontology problems and modern ways of their solutions. Periodontology. 2015;20(3):33-36. (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24365631.

6. L. Yu. Orekhova. Periodontology diseases. Moscow: Poly Media Press, 2004:432. (In Russ.).

7. S. B. Ulitovskiy. Practical oral hygiene. Moscow. 2002:324. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201796452-57.

8. S. B. Ulitovskiy, E. S. Alekseeva, A. A. Vasjanina et al. The role of hygiene tools in periodontal diseases treatment. Periodontology. 2015;20(1):37-42. (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23413722.

9. I. Ericsson, B. Thilander. Orthodontic forces and recurrence of periodontal disease: An experimental study in the dog. American Journal of Orthodontics. 1978;74(1):41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90044-1.

10. J.-J. Ji, X.-D. Li, Q. Fan et al. Prevalence of gingival recession after orthodontic treatment of infraversion and open bite. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics. Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopädie. 2019;80(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056018-0159-8.

11. H.-Y. Sim, H.-S. Kim, D.-U. Jung et al. Association between orthodontic treatment and periodontal diseases: Results from a national survey. The Angle Orthodontist. 2017;87(5):651-657. https://doi.org/10.2319/030317-162.1.

12. O. I. Arsenina, A. S. Grigor'jan, O. A. Frolova et al. Diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory processes in periodontium, occurred during orthodontic treatment. The Dental Institute. 2005;1(26):50-55. (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=15267369.