Mehrnaz Moradinejad1, Rayan Chaharmahali2, Milad Shamohammadi1,3, Maziar Mir4,5, Vahid Rakhshan6. 1. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. 2. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. charmahali.r@gmail.com. 3. Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of Conservative Dentistry (DGL), Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Hospital, Aachen, Germany. 5. Beckman Laser Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA. 6. Dentist in private practice, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use non-invasive or minimally invasive methods to accelerate orthodontic tooth movements (OTM) is desirable. In this regard, low-level laser therapy (LLLT, photobiomodulation) and piezocision are suggested. However, because the efficacies of these methods remain controversial/inconclusive, we investigated and compared these two methods. METHODS: Sixty-four quadrants in 32 patients were randomized into three parallel intervention groups of 22, 22, and 20 (6 parallel arms, n = 64 treatment/control sides). Bilateral first premolars were extracted and canine retraction commenced. In each group, one side of the mouth was randomly selected as control, while the other side underwent each of three interventions: LLLT (940 nm, 8 J, 0.5 W, 16 s, 12 sites), piezocision, and "LLLT + piezocision". At the 3rd, 6th, and 9th follow-up weeks, canine retraction and anchorage loss were measured. Data were analyzed statistically (α = 0.05). RESULTS: After 9 weeks, LLLT, piezocision, and LLLT + piezocision improved canine retraction by 0.51, 1.14, and 1.93 mm, respectively. LLLT accelerated canine retraction (compared to control) by 1.6-, 1.4-, and 1.2-fold in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th week, respectively. These statistics were 2.1-, 1.7-, and 1.5-fold for piezocision and 2.7-, 2.1-, and 1.8-fold for LLLT + piezocision. Compared to controls, each intervention showed significant retraction acceleration (p < 0.05). The effect of LLLT + piezocision was greater than that of isolated piezocision (p < 0.05), which itself was greater than that for isolated LLLT (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: All three methods accelerated OTM, with the combination of LLLT + piezocision producing the strongest and LLLT producing the weakest acceleration.
PURPOSE: The use non-invasive or minimally invasive methods to accelerate orthodontic tooth movements (OTM) is desirable. In this regard, low-level laser therapy (LLLT, photobiomodulation) and piezocision are suggested. However, because the efficacies of these methods remain controversial/inconclusive, we investigated and compared these two methods. METHODS: Sixty-four quadrants in 32 patients were randomized into three parallel intervention groups of 22, 22, and 20 (6 parallel arms, n = 64 treatment/control sides). Bilateral first premolars were extracted and canine retraction commenced. In each group, one side of the mouth was randomly selected as control, while the other side underwent each of three interventions: LLLT (940 nm, 8 J, 0.5 W, 16 s, 12 sites), piezocision, and "LLLT + piezocision". At the 3rd, 6th, and 9th follow-up weeks, canine retraction and anchorage loss were measured. Data were analyzed statistically (α = 0.05). RESULTS: After 9 weeks, LLLT, piezocision, and LLLT + piezocision improved canine retraction by 0.51, 1.14, and 1.93 mm, respectively. LLLT accelerated canine retraction (compared to control) by 1.6-, 1.4-, and 1.2-fold in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th week, respectively. These statistics were 2.1-, 1.7-, and 1.5-fold for piezocision and 2.7-, 2.1-, and 1.8-fold for LLLT + piezocision. Compared to controls, each intervention showed significant retraction acceleration (p < 0.05). The effect of LLLT + piezocision was greater than that of isolated piezocision (p < 0.05), which itself was greater than that for isolated LLLT (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: All three methods accelerated OTM, with the combination of LLLT + piezocision producing the strongest and LLLT producing the weakest acceleration.
Authors: Vanessa Margaret Hawkins; Alexandra K Papadopoulou; Matthew Wong; Nikolaos Pandis; Oyku Dalci; Mehmet Ali Darendeliler Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: L Fernández-Ferrer; J-M Montiel-Company; E Candel-Martí; J-M Almerich-Silla; M Peñarrocha-Diago; C Bellot-Arcís Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2016-11-01