Literature DB >> 30372126

Mini-implant supported canine retraction with micro-osteoperforation: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Saritha Sivarajan, Jennifer Geraldine Doss, Spyridon N Papageorgiou, Martyn T Cobourne, Mang Chek Wey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate, using a split-mouth randomized clinical design, the effect of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) on mini-implant supported canine retraction using fixed appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty subjects (seven males and 23 females) with a mean age of 22.2 (3.72) years were randomized into three canine retraction groups: Group 1 (MOP 4-weekly maxilla/8-weekly mandible; n = 10); Group 2 (MOP 8-weekly maxilla/12-weekly mandible; n = 10) and Group 3 (MOP 12-weekly maxilla/4-weekly mandible; n = 10) measured at 4-week intervals over 16 weeks. Subjects also completed pain (5-point Likert scale) and pain impact (Visual Analogue Scale) questionnaires. The primary outcome was the amount of canine retraction over 16 weeks at MOP (experimental) and non-MOP (control) sites.
RESULTS: Mean overall canine retraction was 4.16 (1.62) mm with MOP and 3.06 (1.64) mm without. After adjusting for differences between jaws, all MOP groups exhibited significantly higher canine distalization than the control group: 0.89 mm more (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 1.59 mm; P = .01) in the MOP-4 group, 1.08 mm more (95% CI = 0.49 to 1.68 mm; P = .001) in the MOP-8 group and 1.33 mm more (95% CI = 0.55 to 2.10 mm; P = .002) in the MOP-12 group. All subjects reported pain associated with MOP with 60% classifying it as moderate and 15% severe. The main impact of this reported pain was related to chewing and speech.
CONCLUSIONS: MOP can increase overall mini-implant supported canine retraction over a 16-week period of observation but this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accelerated tooth movement; Micro-osteoperforation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30372126      PMCID: PMC8120871          DOI: 10.2319/011518-47.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  14 in total

1.  Cytokine expression and accelerated tooth movement.

Authors:  C C Teixeira; E Khoo; J Tran; I Chartres; Y Liu; L M Thant; I Khabensky; L P Gart; G Cisneros; M Alikhani
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 6.116

2.  Immunohistochemical evaluation of osteoclast recruitment during experimental tooth movement in young and adult rats.

Authors:  Yijin Ren; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Jaap C Maltha
Journal:  Arch Oral Biol       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 2.633

3.  Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Andrew T DiBiase; Inas H Nasr; Paul Scott; Martyn T Cobourne
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 4.  Surgically facilitated orthodontic treatment: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eelke J Hoogeveen; Johan Jansma; Yijin Ren
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Perception of pain as a result of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.

Authors:  P A Scheurer; A R Firestone; W B Bürgin
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure.

Authors:  V Dixon; M J F Read; K D O'Brien; H V Worthington; N A Mandall
Journal:  J Orthod       Date:  2002-03

7.  Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Authors:  Maurício Mezomo; Eduardo S de Lima; Luciane Macedo de Menezes; André Weissheimer; Susiane Allgayer
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Effects of supplemental vibrational force on space closure, treatment duration, and occlusal outcome: A multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Andrew T DiBiase; Neil R Woodhouse; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Nicola Johnson; Carmel Slipper; James Grant; Maryam Alsaleh; Yousef Khaja; Martyn T Cobourne
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.650

Review 9.  Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  Padhraig S Fleming; Zbys Fedorowicz; Ama Johal; Ahmed El-Angbawi; Nikolaos Pandis
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-06-30

Review 10.  Acceleration of tooth movement during orthodontic treatment--a frontier in orthodontics.

Authors:  Ghada Nimeri; Chung H Kau; Nadia S Abou-Kheir; Rachel Corona
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 2.750

View more
  18 in total

1.  Effects of miniscrew-facilitated micro-osteoperforations on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement : A split-mouth, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Esra Bolat Gümüş; Ece Kınsız
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Effect of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on the rate of en masse orthodontic tooth retraction : A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Prashant Kumar; Abdulqadir H Rampurawala; Amol S Patil
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 2.341

3.  Effects of micro-osteoperforations on intraoral miniscrew anchored maxillary molar distalization : A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Kemal Gulduren; Hayriye Tumer; Ulas Oz
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  Effect of micro-osteoperforations on rate of space closure by mini-implant supported maxillary anterior en-masse retraction: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Pradeep Raghav; Amit Kumar Khera; Pranav Bhasin
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2021-01-22

5.  Micro-osteoperforation effectiveness on tooth movement rate and impact on oral health related quality of life.

Authors:  Liana Fattori; Michelle Sendyk; João Batista de Paiva; David Normando; José Rino Neto
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Distribution of mandibular trabeculae bone volume fraction in relation to different MOP intervals for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement.

Authors:  Ng Heng Khiang Teh; Saritha Sivarajan; Muhammad Khan Asif; Norliza Ibrahim; Mang Chek Wey
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  The effect of different micro-osteoperforation depths on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A single-center, single-blind, randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Tugba Haliloglu Ozkan; Selim Arici
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 1.372

8.  Do orthodontists aim to decrease the duration of fixed appliance treatment?

Authors:  Mushriq F Abid; Akram F Alhuwaizi; Ali M Al-Attar
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2021-02-19

9.  Effects of micro-osteoperforations performed with Propel system on tooth movement, pain/quality of life, anchorage loss, and root resorption: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cibelle Cristina Oliveira Dos Santos; Paulo Mecenas; Mônica Lidia Santos de Castro Aragón; David Normando
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 2.750

Review 10.  Biomechanical and biological responses of periodontium in orthodontic tooth movement: up-date in a new decade.

Authors:  Yuan Li; Qi Zhan; Minyue Bao; Jianru Yi; Yu Li
Journal:  Int J Oral Sci       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 6.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.