Literature DB >> 27894541

Assessment of the changes in arch perimeter and irregularity in the mandibular arch during initial alignment with the AcceleDent Aura appliance vs no appliance in adolescents: A single-blind randomized clinical trial.

Peter Miles1, Elizabeth Fisher2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this 2-arm parallel trial was to assess the effects of the AcceleDent Aura (OrthoAccel Technologies, Houston, Tex) appliance on the increase in mandibular anterior arch perimeter, the reduction in mandibular arch irregularity, and the amount of discomfort during initial alignment of the mandibular arch with fixed appliances.
METHODS: Forty Class II adolescent patients with full fixed appliances and treated with maxillary premolar extractions and no extractions in the mandibular arch participated in this randomized clinical trial. They were recruited in a private practice and treated by 1 clinician. Randomization to either a no-appliance group or the AcceleDent Aura appliance group was accomplished with permuted blocks of 10 patients with the allocations concealed in opaque, sealed envelopes. Both the operator and the outcome assessor were blinded, but it was not feasible to blind the patients. Discomfort was recorded during the first week of treatment. Mandibular anterior arch perimeter and anterior irregularity were measured from plaster models taken at the start of treatment and after 5, 8, and 10 weeks.
RESULTS: No patients were lost to follow-up, and no data were missing. There was no difference in anterior arch perimeter at the start of treatment (P = 0.85; median, 0.6 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6, +1.8 mm) or at any other time point (5 weeks: P = 0.84; median, -0.2 mm; 95% CI, -1.6, +1.2 mm; 8 weeks: P = 0.56; median, -0.3 mm; 95% CI, -1.6, +0.7 mm; 10 weeks: P = 0.67; median, -0.1 mm; 95% CI, -1.5, +1.1 mm). There was also no difference between groups for incisor irregularity (P = 0.46; median, -0.5 mm; 95% CI, -2.2, +2.8 mm; P = 0.80; median, 0.0 mm; 95% CI, -1.0, +1.1 mm; P = 0.70; median, 0.1 mm; 95% CI, -0.7, +0.8 mm; P = 0.65; median, 0.2 mm; 95% CI, -0.6, +0.6 mm). No difference was detected at any time during the first week for discomfort (baseline: P = 0.84; median, -1.5 mm; 95% CI, -15.9, +9.8 mm; 6 hours: P = 0.96; median, 0.3 mm; 95% CI, -23.5, +21.8 mm; 1 day: P, 0.75; median, -3.5 mm; 95% CI, -27.1, +26.9 mm; 3 days: P = 0.98; median, -0.6 mm; 95% CI, -20.6, +20.0; 7 days: P = 0.57; median, 0.5 mm; 95% CI, -5.0, +5.3 mm). However, significantly fewer participants in the AcceleDent Aura group used analgesics at day 1 (P = <0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The AcceleDent Aura appliance had no effect compared with no appliance on increasing anterior arch perimeter, or reducing irregularity or perceived discomfort during initial alignment with fixed appliances, although more subjects used painkillers at 24 hours in the no-appliance group. REGISTRATION: This trial was not registered. PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement. FUNDING: A special research grant was obtained from the Australian Society of Orthodontists Foundation for Research and Education to purchase the AcceleDent Aura appliances and fund the statistical analysis. Copyright Â
© 2016 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27894541     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.07.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  9 in total

1.  Effects of mechanical vibrations on maxillary canine retraction and perceived pain: a pilot, single-center, randomized-controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Khaled Taha; R Scott Conley; Praveen Arany; Stephen Warunek; Thikriat Al-Jewair
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 2.634

Review 2.  Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children.

Authors:  Sarah Turner; Jayne E Harrison; Fyeza Nj Sharif; Darren Owens; Declan T Millett
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-12-31

Review 3.  Performance comparison of vibration devices on orthodontic tooth movement - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Pasupureddi Keerthana; Rajasri Diddige; Prasad Chitra
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2020-11-05

Review 4.  Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Klaus Bsl Batista; Badri Thiruvenkatachari; Jayne E Harrison; Kevin D O'Brien
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-03-13

Review 5.  Effectiveness of using a Vibrating Device in Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mohamed Atfy Abd Elmotaleb; Manal M Elnamrawy; Foud Sharaby; Amr R Elbeialy; Amr ElDakroury
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2019-02-14

6.  Effectiveness and importance of powered tooth brushes in tooth movement.

Authors:  Sridhar Kannan; Sajna Fassul; Ashish Kumar Singh; Nitin Arora; Abhita Malhotra; Neeraj Saini
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2019-07

7.  Dynamic changes in tooth displacement and bone morphometry induced by orthodontic force.

Authors:  Chen Zong; Jeroen Van Dessel; Greetje Vande Velde; Guy Willems; Maria Cadenas de Llano-Pérula
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  The Effects of Low-frequency Vibration on Aligner Treatment Duration: A Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Giuseppa Bilello; Massimo Fazio; Giuseppe Currò; Giuseppe A Scardina; Giuseppe Pizzo
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2022-06-29

Review 9.  The effectiveness of vibrational stimulus to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Dian Jing; Jiani Xiao; Xiaobing Li; Yu Li; Zhihe Zhao
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 2.757

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.