Effect of piezocision corticotomy on en-masse retraction

Abdulkarim A Hatrom, Khalid H Zawawi, Reem M Al-Ali, Hanadi M Sabban, Talal M Zahid, Ghassan A Al-Turki, Ali H Hassan, Abdulkarim A Hatrom, Khalid H Zawawi, Reem M Al-Ali, Hanadi M Sabban, Talal M Zahid, Ghassan A Al-Turki, Ali H Hassan

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the amount of en-masse retraction with or without piezocision corticotomy, to assess the type of tooth movement, to evaluate root integrity after retraction, and to record reported pain levels.

Materials and methods: This randomized, controlled clinical trial included 26 orthodontic patients requiring premolar extraction. The patients were divided into two groups: (1) an extraction with piezocision corticotomy group (PCG) and (2) an extraction-only group, which served as the control group (CG). Cone-beam computed tomography images were acquired before and 4 months after the initiation of en-masse retraction utilizing miniscrews. The following variables were assessed: the amount of en-masse retraction, incisor inclination, incisor and canine root resorption, and patient-reported pain.

Results: Twelve and 11 participants completed the entire study in the PCG and CG, respectively. The amount of en-masse retraction was significantly greater in the PCG compared to the CG (mean = 4.8 ± 0.57 mm vs 2.4 ± 0.33 mm, respectively [P < .001]). There was also significantly less tipping and root resorption of incisors in the PCG (P < .05). The reported pain was significantly higher on the first day in the PCG compared to the CG (P < .001); however, it became similar between the groups after 24 hours.

Conclusions: Piezocision corticotomy enhanced the amount of en-masse retraction two times more with less root resorption. However, future studies are required to assess the long-term effects of this technique.

Keywords: Corticotomy; En-masse retraction; Piezocision; Root resorption.

© 2020 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
(A, B) Piezocision performed on the buccal side.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
(A, B) Nickel-titanium closed-coil springs (250 g of force) extended between the miniscrews and power arms were used to perform the en-masse retraction.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Cone-beam computed tomography sagittal section showing the assessment of anterior retraction by using a line perpendicular to the palatal plane passing through the apex of the miniscrews. A line drawn at 90° from this line to the cementoenamel junction was used to measure the amount of retraction.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
CONSORT flow chart.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Comparisons of mean change in the amount of incisor retraction (mm) in the piezocision corticotomy group (PCG) and control group (CG)(Δ T1-T2).
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Comparisons of mean change in incisor inclination in the piezocision corticotomy and control groups (Δ T1-T2).
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Comparisons of the amount of extraction space closure on the digital model between the piezocision corticotomy and control groups (Δ T1-T2).
Figure 8.
Figure 8.
Comparisons of patient-reported pain in both groups.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe