OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, CENTRAL, and SIGLE from January 1990 to August 2011 for randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of interventions on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. The processes of study search, selection, and quality assessment were conducted independently in duplicate by two review authors. Original outcome data, if possible, underwent statistical pooling by using Review Manager 5. RESULTS: Through a predefined search strategy, we finally included nine eligible studies. Among them, five interventions were studied (ie, low-level laser therapy, corticotomy, electrical current, pulsed electromagnetic fields, and dentoalveolar or periodontal distraction). Six outcomes were evaluated in these studies (ie, accumulative moved distance or movement rate, time required to move tooth to its destination, anchorage loss, periodontal health, pulp vitality, and root resorption). CONCLUSION: Among the five interventions, corticotomy is effective and safe to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement, low-level laser therapy was unable to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement, current evidence does not reveal whether electrical current and pulsed electromagnetic fields are effective in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement, and dentoalveolar or periodontal distraction is promising in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement but lacks convincing evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, CENTRAL, and SIGLE from January 1990 to August 2011 for randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of interventions on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. The processes of study search, selection, and quality assessment were conducted independently in duplicate by two review authors. Original outcome data, if possible, underwent statistical pooling by using Review Manager 5. RESULTS: Through a predefined search strategy, we finally included nine eligible studies. Among them, five interventions were studied (ie, low-level laser therapy, corticotomy, electrical current, pulsed electromagnetic fields, and dentoalveolar or periodontal distraction). Six outcomes were evaluated in these studies (ie, accumulative moved distance or movement rate, time required to move tooth to its destination, anchorage loss, periodontal health, pulp vitality, and root resorption). CONCLUSION: Among the five interventions, corticotomy is effective and safe to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement, low-level laser therapy was unable to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement, current evidence does not reveal whether electrical current and pulsed electromagnetic fields are effective in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement, and dentoalveolar or periodontal distraction is promising in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement but lacks convincing evidence.
Authors: Matheus Melo Pithon; Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; David Normando; Carlos Flores-Mir; Dauro Douglas Oliveira Journal: Dental Press J Orthod Date: 2015 May-Jun
Authors: Frank Falkensammer; Christoph Arnhart; Christoph Krall; Wolfgang Schaden; Josef Freudenthaler; Hans-Peter Bantleon Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 3.573