{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02158273381294964, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012426422498364944, 'mean_word_length': 4.953307392996109, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Root resorption diagnosed with cone beam computed tomography after 6 months of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance and the relation to risk factors.

OBJECTIVES
To investigate root resorption after 6 months of active orthodontic treatment and its relation to possible risk factors.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ninety-seven patients (10-18 years) with a Class I malocclusion and crowding treated with fixed appliance and premolar extractions were examined with cone beam computed tomography before and after 6 months of active treatment. The exposure covered all teeth from first molar to first molar in both jaws. The Malmgren index was used to evaluate the degree of root resorption. Irregular root contour (score 1) was seen in most teeth already before active treatment, and therefore resorptions were registered only as score 2 (<2 mm, minor resorption) or higher.


RESULTS
Minor root resorption was noted in 10% of the patients and severe root resorption, >2 mm (score 3) was found in four patients. Root resorption was more frequently seen in the upper jaw, especially the incisors. There was no statistically significant correlation of root resorption with any of the selected risk factors.


CONCLUSIONS
After 6 months of treatment, clinically significant resorption was diagnosed in 4% of the patients, ie, in 96% of the patients the radiographic examination did not reveal any significant information. The selected risk factors did not have any impact on the amount of resorption after 6 months of active treatment.