Doreen Ng1, Ambrose K Chan2, Alexandra K Papadopoulou1, Oyku Dalci1, Peter Petocz3, Mehmet Ali Darendeliler1. 1. Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney Dental Hospital, Sydney South West Area Health Service, Australia. 2. Brain and Mind Research Institute, The University of Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of Statistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
Background: The effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement has been extensively studied; however, there is limited knowledge on the use of LLLT on orthodontic root resorption. Objective: To investigate the effect of LLLT on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and to compare the difference between pulsed and continuous LLLT on OIIRR. Trial design: Double-blind, single-centre 3-arm parallel split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Participants: Twenty adolescent patients who required bilateral maxillary first premolar (MFP) orthodontic extractions were recruited from the Sydney Dental Hospital between October 2014 and December 2014. Intervention: All MFPs were tipped buccally for 28 days to induce OIIRR. The experimental premolars (n = 20) received LLLT and the control premolars (n = 20) received placebo-laser on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 21. Ten experimental premolars received LLLT via continuous delivery and 10 received pulsed delivery. Laser parameter: AlGaAs diode laser of 808 nm wavelength, 0.18 W power, 1.6 J per point, and duration of 9s for continuous mode and 4.5 s for pulsed mode. Outcome: The difference in root resorption crater volume between LLLT and placebo-laser and continuous or pulsed laser delivery after 28 days. Randomization: Randomization was computer-generated, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. Blinding: The participants and operator were blinded. Results:Eighty-eight patients were screened and 20 patients were randomized. Forty premolars were analysed. LLLT resulted in 23 per cent less root resorption compared to the placebo (P = 0.026). Pulsed laser delivery resulted in 5 per cent less root resorption than continuous; however, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.823). No harm was observed. Conclusion: Teeth treated with LLLT had less total root resorption than placebo-laser. Furthermore, there was minimal difference between pulsed or continuous delivery of LLLT. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000829415). Protocol: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.
RCT Entities:
Background: The effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement has been extensively studied; however, there is limited knowledge on the use of LLLT on orthodontic root resorption. Objective: To investigate the effect of LLLT on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and to compare the difference between pulsed and continuous LLLT on OIIRR. Trial design: Double-blind, single-centre 3-arm parallel split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Participants: Twenty adolescent patients who required bilateral maxillary first premolar (MFP) orthodontic extractions were recruited from the Sydney Dental Hospital between October 2014 and December 2014. Intervention: All MFPs were tipped buccally for 28 days to induce OIIRR. The experimental premolars (n = 20) received LLLT and the control premolars (n = 20) received placebo-laser on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 21. Ten experimental premolars received LLLT via continuous delivery and 10 received pulsed delivery. Laser parameter: AlGaAs diode laser of 808 nm wavelength, 0.18 W power, 1.6 J per point, and duration of 9s for continuous mode and 4.5 s for pulsed mode. Outcome: The difference in root resorption crater volume between LLLT and placebo-laser and continuous or pulsed laser delivery after 28 days. Randomization: Randomization was computer-generated, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. Blinding: The participants and operator were blinded. Results: Eighty-eight patients were screened and 20 patients were randomized. Forty premolars were analysed. LLLT resulted in 23 per cent less root resorption compared to the placebo (P = 0.026). Pulsed laser delivery resulted in 5 per cent less root resorption than continuous; however, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.823). No harm was observed. Conclusion: Teeth treated with LLLT had less total root resorption than placebo-laser. Furthermore, there was minimal difference between pulsed or continuous delivery of LLLT. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000829415). Protocol: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.