Laser-assisted Flapless Corticotomy in Accelerating Canine Retraction

March 21, 2020 updated by: Damascus University

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Laser-assisted Flapless Corticotomy in Accelerating Canine Retraction: A Split-mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Erbium lasers have been suggested to accomplish corticotomy without flap reflection due to their attractive advantages. The current trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of laser-assisted flapless corticotomy in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. The secondary aim was to evaluate the patients' responses to laser application. It was postulated that canine retraction after laser-assisted flapless corticotomy would be accomplished within a shorter period compared with the conventional canine retraction method, with no significant degree of pain and discomfort.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Comprehensive orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances usually takes more than 18 months in mild and severe cases. Prolonged treatment time can cause many adverse effects such as pain, discomfort, external root resorption, white spots and dental caries. Decreasing the treatment time for tooth movement has been the focus of both the clinicians and the patients. For the last few decades, investigators have recommended many treatment approaches intending to reduce overall treatment time such as low friction and self-ligating bracket systems, low-level laser irradiation, electrical currents, pharmacological approaches, local platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection and surgical approaches like dentoalveolar distraction and selective alveolar decortication or corticotomy

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

18

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Syrian Arab Republic
      • Hamah, Syrian Arab Republic, 12JO76WH
        • Orthodontic Department, University of Hama Dental School

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

16 years to 26 years (Child, Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Class II division 1 patients requiring orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and a need for upper first-premolar extraction using a two-step retraction technique.
  • Permanent dentition with an age range from 16 to 24 years.
  • Healthy with no systemic conditions.
  • Adequate oral hygiene and healthy periodontal tissues
  • no previous orthodontic treatment
  • Absence of canine endodontic treatment.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Bimaxillary dentoalveolar severe protrusion.
  • Previous orthodontic treatment.
  • Subject with psychological abnormalities.
  • Subject with systemic diseases.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Laser-assisted corticotomy
Er:YAG laser beam was used to perform several perforations to the alveolar bone around the canine in one side of the mouth hoping that would accelerate canine retraction
Procedure: Er:YAG laser
This application was made before the onset of canine retraction in one side of the mouth
No Intervention: Traditional treatment
Canines in this group were retracted by the conventional manner.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in the canine retraction rate
Time Frame: 10 minutes after laser application, one, two, four, 8 and 12 weeks after laser application
The distance between the first molar labial hook and the canine bracket hook was recorded using Digital Boely gauge and then this distance was divided by the time that passed between two assessment points.
10 minutes after laser application, one, two, four, 8 and 12 weeks after laser application

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in the levels of pain and discomfort
Time Frame: at the 1st day following laser application (10 minutes) and at the 3rd, 5th and 7th days following laser application

A questionnaire was administered at the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th day after laser application. The questionnaire contained 5 questions (using 4-point Likert ordinal scales) to collect patients' responses on the following questions:

Question 1: Do you feel pain during eating? Question 2: Do you feel pain during the day? Question 3: Do you feel pain that can awaken you during the night? Question 4: Do you feel swollen on the surgical side?

The possible answers were:

1. No 2.Mild 3.Moderate 4. Severe For the first four questions, the higher the score, the worse the feeling was.

Question 5: Which one of the following has caused more discomfort to you?

1. Extraction of premolars 2. Laser application 3.Both
at the 1st day following laser application (10 minutes) and at the 3rd, 5th and 7th days following laser application

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Damascus University

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Samer T Jaber, DDS MSc, PhD student, Orthodontics Department, University of Damascus Dental School
  • Study Chair: Rabab Al-sabbagh, DDS MSc PhD, Professor of Orthodontics, University of Hama, Hama, Syria

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

February 15, 2015

Primary Completion (Actual)

June 15, 2017

Study Completion (Actual)

September 15, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

March 18, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 18, 2020

First Posted (Actual)

March 20, 2020

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 24, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 21, 2020

Last Verified

March 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • UDDS-Ortho-01-2020

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Class II Division 1 Malocclusion

Clinical Trials on Er:YAG laser

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Venezuela

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe