Kemal Gulduren1, Hayriye Tumer2, Ulas Oz3. 1. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Near East University, Nicosia, Northern Cyprus. kemal.gulduren@neu.edu.tr. 2. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Near East University, Nicosia, Northern Cyprus. 3. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Near East University, Nicosia, Northern Cyprus.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to study the effects of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization. METHODS: As part of a single center, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial, 20 eligible subjects were randomly recruited from patients who had applied to the orthodontics department of a university dental hospital. In the experimental group, subjects were randomized to receive MOPs to either the left or right maxillary molar region (n = 10). The control group (n = 10) and the contralateral sides of the experimental group (n = 10) did not receive any MOPs. In both groups, distalization of the maxillary molars was performed by miniscrew-supported distalization appliances. Using 3D models, maxillary molar distalization at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks was measured. Pain, discomfort, eating difficulty, and speech problem levels were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS 0-10). Periodontal evaluations were performed. RESULTS: In all, 18 subjects completed the study. The mean amount of tooth movement was significantly greater on the MOP side compared to contralateral side of the experimental group at all time points. After 12 weeks, the maxillary molars on the MOP side moved 1.17-fold more than those on the contralateral side. No significant differences were found regarding amount of tooth movement between the control group and the MOP and contralateral sides of the experimental group. The rates of tooth movement in the MOP sides of the experimental group, contralateral sides of the experimental group, and the control group were 0.029, 0.025, and 0.028 mm/day, respectively. Pain VAS scores after intervention were significantly increased on the MOP side compared with the contralateral side of the experimental group but not at any other time point. No differences in periodontal scores between the groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A 1.17-fold increase in the rate of tooth movement in the MOP group compared with the contralateral side was recorded. However the accelerating effect of MOPs was lower than expected. The mean pain level was statistically greater in the MOP group compared to the contralateral side only on the first day of application.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim was to study the effects of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization. METHODS: As part of a single center, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial, 20 eligible subjects were randomly recruited from patients who had applied to the orthodontics department of a university dental hospital. In the experimental group, subjects were randomized to receive MOPs to either the left or right maxillary molar region (n = 10). The control group (n = 10) and the contralateral sides of the experimental group (n = 10) did not receive any MOPs. In both groups, distalization of the maxillary molars was performed by miniscrew-supported distalization appliances. Using 3D models, maxillary molar distalization at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks was measured. Pain, discomfort, eating difficulty, and speech problem levels were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS 0-10). Periodontal evaluations were performed. RESULTS: In all, 18 subjects completed the study. The mean amount of tooth movement was significantly greater on the MOP side compared to contralateral side of the experimental group at all time points. After 12 weeks, the maxillary molars on the MOP side moved 1.17-fold more than those on the contralateral side. No significant differences were found regarding amount of tooth movement between the control group and the MOP and contralateral sides of the experimental group. The rates of tooth movement in the MOP sides of the experimental group, contralateral sides of the experimental group, and the control group were 0.029, 0.025, and 0.028 mm/day, respectively. Pain VAS scores after intervention were significantly increased on the MOP side compared with the contralateral side of the experimental group but not at any other time point. No differences in periodontal scores between the groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A 1.17-fold increase in the rate of tooth movement in the MOP group compared with the contralateral side was recorded. However the accelerating effect of MOPs was lower than expected. The mean pain level was statistically greater in the MOP group compared to the contralateral side only on the first day of application.