Evaluation of the Effect of Combined Low Energy Laser Application and Micro-Osteoperforations versus the Effect of Application of Each Technique Separately On the Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement

Ahmed Nasef Abdelhameed, Wael Mohamed Mubarak Refai, Ahmed Nasef Abdelhameed, Wael Mohamed Mubarak Refai

Abstract

Aim: The study was conducted to evaluate the effect of combined low energy laser application and Micro-Osteoperforations versus the effect of the application of each technique separately on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement.

Patients and methods: Three parallel groups (each group contained 10 patients) were performed; Group A: In which one side was controlled side, and the other side received micro-osteoperforations (MOPs), Group B: In which one side was controlled side, and the other side received low-level laser therapy (LLLT), Group C: In which one side was controlled side, and the other side received both MOPs and LLLT.

Results: Significant statistical differences were obvious in the rate of canine retraction between each intervention and the control sides as following; the MOPs increased the rate of canine retraction by 1.6 fold more than the control side, LLLT increased the rate of canine retraction by 1.3 fold than the control side, and combination of both techniques resulted in an increase in the rate of canine retraction by 1.8 fold more than the control side.

Conclusion: Combination of MOPs and LLLT proved to be more efficient regarding increasing the rate of canine retraction than the application of each technique separately.

Keywords: LLLT; Micro-osteoperforations; OTM; Orthodontic mini-screws.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Lateral view of coil spring attached to canine hook and mini-screw
Figure 2
Figure 2
Lateral view showing micro-osteoperforations performed along the root of the canine
Figure 3
Figure 3
The used MOPs tool
Figure 4
Figure 4
Laser device and the protective eyeglasses
Figure 5
Figure 5
Lateral view showing laser application
Figure 6
Figure 6
Intra-oral usage of a digital calliper
Figure 7
Figure 7
Graphic representation of the mean distance travelled by the maxillary canine about the baseline in group A
Figure 8
Figure 8
Graphic representation of the mean distance travelled by the maxillary canine about the baseline in group B
Figure 9
Figure 9
Graphic representation of the mean distance travelled by the maxillary canine in reference to the baseline in group C

References

    1. Fisher MA, Wenger RM, Hans MG. pretreatment characteristics associated with orthodontic treatment duration. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137:178–82. PMid:20152672.
    1. Bishara SE, Ostby AW. White spot lesions: formation, prevention and treatment. Semin Orthod. 2008;14:174–82. .
    1. Pandis N, Nasika M, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;134:646–51. PMid:18984396.
    1. Royka A, Denes Z, Razouk G. The relationship between the length of orthodontic treatment and patient compliance. Fogorv Sz. 1999;92:79–86.
    1. Ghada Nimeri, Chung H Kau, Nadia S Abou-Kheir, Rachel Corona. Acceleration of tooth movement during orthodontic treatment - a frontier in Orthodontics. Prog Orthod. 2013;14:42. PMid:24326040 PMCid: PMC4384959.
    1. Cano J, Campo J, Bonilla E, Colmenero C. Corticotomy assisted orthodontics. J Clin Exp Dent. 2012;4(1):e54–9. PMid:24558526 PMCid: PMC3908811.
    1. Aboul-Ela SM, El-Bialy AR, El-Sayed KMF, Selim EMN, El-Mangoury NH, Mostafa YA. Miniscrew implant-supported maxillary canine retraction with and without corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139(2):252–9. PMid:21300255.
    1. Al-Naoum F, Hajeer MY, Al-Jundi A. Does alveolar corticotomy accelerate orthodontic tooth movement when retracting upper canines?A split mouth design randomized controlled trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72(10):1880–9. PMid:25128922.
    1. Abed S, Al Bustani A. Corticotomy assissted orthodontic canine retraction. J Bagh Coll Dentistry. 2013;25(1):160–6. .
    1. Mostafa YA, Mohamed Salah Fayed M, Mehanni S, El Bokle NN, Heider AM. Comparison of corticotomy-facilitayed vs standard tooth-movement techniques in dogs with miniscrews as anchor units. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136(4):570–7. PMid:19815161.
    1. Wang L, Lee W, Lei D-L, Liu Y-P, Yamashita D-D, Yen SL-K. Tissue responses in corticotomy and osteotomy assisted tooth movement in rats: Histology and immunostaining. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136(6):770.el-11. discussion 770-1.
    1. Cassetta M, Di Carlo S, Giansanti M, Pompa G, Barbato E. The impact of osteotomy technique for corticotomy assisted orthodontic treatment (CAOT) on oral health related quality life. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(12):35–40.
    1. Sangsuwon C, Alansari S, Nervina J, Teixeira CC, Alikhani M. Micro-osteoperforations in accelerated orthodontics. Clin Dent Rev. 2018;(4) 1894-017-0013-1.
    1. Aksakalli S, Balaban A, Nazaroglu K, Saglam E. Accelerated Tooth Movement with Orthodontic Mini-Screws. Case Rep Dent. 2017;23(2):75–91. .
    1. Maiman T. Stimulated optical radiationin ruby lasers. Nature. 1960;187:493–4. .
    1. Doshi-Mehta G, Bhad-Patil W. Efficacy of low intensity laser therapy in reducing treatment time and orthodontic pain: a clinical investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2012;141(3):289–97. PMid:22381489.
    1. Cepera F, Torres FC, Scanavini M, Paranhos L, Capelozza Filho L, Cardoso M. Effect low level laser on bone regeneration after rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. American Association of Orthodontics. 2012;141(4):444–50.
    1. Ge MK, He WL, Chen J, Wen C, Yin X, Hu Z. Efficacy of low laser therapy for accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci. 2014
    1. Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R. comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(1):30–5.
    1. Keng FY, Quick AN, Swain MV, Herbison P. A comparison of space closure rates between preactivated nickel-titanium and titanium-molybdenum alloy T-loops: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(1):33–8. PMid:21415288.
    1. Rohit S, Kulshrestha Ragni Tandon, Pratik Chandra. Canine retraction: A systematic review of different methods used. J Orthod Sci. 2015;4(1):1–8. PMid:25657985 PMCid: PMC4314834.
    1. Mohammed H1, Rizk MZ, Wafaie K, Almuzian M. Effectiveness of nickel-titanium springs vs elastomeric chains in orthodontic space closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2018;21(1):12–19. PMid:29265578.
    1. Barlow M, Kula K. Factor's influencing efficiency of sliding mechanics to close extraction space: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008;11(2):65–73. PMid:18416747.
    1. Wilcko WM, Wilcko MT. Accelerating tooth movement: the case for corticotomy-induced orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Ortop. 2013;144(1):4–12. PMid:23810038.
    1. Cruz DR, Kohara EK, Ribeiro MS, Wetter NU. Effects of low intensity laser therapy on the orthodontic movement velocity of human teeth: a preliminary study. Lasers Surg Med. 2004;35(2):117–20. PMid:15334614.
    1. Youssef M, Ashkar S, Hamade E, Gutknecht N, Lampert F, Mir M. The effect of low level laser therapy during orthodontic movement: preliminary study. Lasers Med Sci. 2008;23(1):27–33. PMid:17361391.
    1. Gence G, Kocadereli I, Tasar F, Kilinc K, El S, Sarkarati B. Effect of low level laser therapy (LLLT) on orthodontic tooth movement. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28(1):41–7. PMid:22350425.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel