A Novel Method to Accelerate Orthodontic Tooth Movement Using Low-Intensity Direct Electrical Current in Patients Requiring en-Masse Retraction of the Upper Anterior Teeth: A Preliminary Clinical Report

Shaadouh, Rashad I.; Hajeer, Mohammad Y; Al-Sabbagh, Rabab; Alam, Mohammad Khursheed; Mahmoud, Ghiath; Idris, Ghassan

doi:10.7759/cureus.39438

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This high percentage may indicate the ease of the procedure, and reflect the minor and tolerable pain and discomfort associated with this treatment which did not interfere with patients’ regular social activities. These results agree with what reported previously in a pilot study that conducted by Shaadouh et al [ 36 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…No associated harms or sever untoward effect were reported during the follow-up period, except for one patient who suffered from a small ulcer on the attached gingiva around the left central incisors two days after starting use the device, which was caused by an irritation from device’s edge. Despite of this, the appliance appeared safe during its use and this agrees with that of Shaadouh et al about the safety of using low-intensity electrical stimulation and the electrical stimulation device [ 36 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…3 ). The effectiveness and safety of proposed device were evaluated in a preliminary study conducted on six patients, which showed that the device was effective in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement without any adverse effects [ 36 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, another pilot clinical trial was conducted by Shaadouh et al who used a new electrical removable device that applied low-intensity electrical stimulation during the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth. They reported that the application of LIES on the anterior region of the maxilla for five hours daily was an effective method to increase the retraction rate of the upper anterior teeth with an average rate of 0.97 ± 0.06 mm/month [ 36 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Patient-reported outcomes during accelerating the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth using low-intensity electrical stimulation: a randomized controlled trial

Shaadouh,

Hajeer,

Mahmoud

et al. 2024

Prog Orthod.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Low-intensity electrical stimulation (LIES) is considered a relatively recent technology that has received little attention in orthodontics as a method of acceleration. This study aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures when LIES is used to accelerate the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth. Materials and methods The sample consisted of 40 patients (8 males, 32 females; mean age 21.1 ± 2.3 years), with Class II division I malocclusion who required extraction of the first premolars to retract upper anterior teeth. They were randomly assigned to the LIES group (n = 20) and the conventional en-masse retraction group (CER; n = 20). Patient responses regarding pain, discomfort, burning sensation, swelling, chewing difficulty, speech difficulty, and painkillers’ consumption were recorded at these nine assessment times: 24 h (T1), 3 days (T2), and 7 days (T3) after force application, then in the second month after 24 h (T4), 3 days (T5), and 7 days (T6) of force re-activation, and finally after 24 h (T7), 3 days (T8), and 7 days (T9) of force re-activation in the third month. Results The mean values of pain perception were smaller in the LIES group than those in the CER group at all assessment times with no statistically significant differences between the two groups except during the second and third months (T5, T6, T8, and T9; P < 0.005). However, discomfort mean values were greater in the LIES group with significant differences compared to CER group during the first week of the follow-up only (T1, T2, and T3; P < 0.005). Burning sensation levels were very mild in the LIES group, with significant differences between the two groups at T1 and T2 only (P < 0.001). Speech difficulty was significantly greater in the LIES group compared to CER group at all studied times (P < 0.001). High levels of satisfaction and acceptance were reported in both groups, without any significant difference. Conclusion Both the LIES-based acceleration of en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth and the conventional retraction were accompanied by mild to moderate pain, discomfort, and chewing difficulty on the first day of retraction. These sensations gradually decreased and almost disappeared over a week after force application or re-activation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05920525. Registered 17 June 2023 - retrospectively registered, http://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05920525?term=NCT05920525&rank=1.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patient-reported outcomes during accelerating the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth using low-intensity electrical stimulation: a randomized controlled trial

Shaadouh,

Hajeer,

Mahmoud

et al. 2024

Prog Orthod.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the traditional corticotomy group (TCG) is considered invasive due to the need for raising a gingival flap and requiring surgical sutures [3]. Therefore, there has been increasing interest in developing more conservative surgical techniques, including flapless corticotomy group (FCG) using a piezosurgical device [13,14], corticision [15], laser-assisted flapless corticotomy [16,17], and low-intensity direct electrical current [18]. These procedures do not require surgical intervention with flap elevation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Associated With the Acceleration of en-Masse Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth Assisted by Flapless Corticotomy Compared to Traditional Corticotomy: A Two-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

Khlef¹,

Mousa²,

Ammar³

et al. 2023

Cureus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to assess the levels of pain, discomfort, and functional impairment associated with the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth when treating Class II division 1 malocclusion patients using traditional corticotomy or flapless corticotomy. In addition, an assessment of patients' satisfaction with the selected surgical intervention was undertaken at one-month post-operatively.Materials and methods: The study sample comprised 40 patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion, randomly assigned to either the traditional corticotomy group (n=20) or the flapless corticotomy group (n=20). Patients underwent extraction of the maxillary first premolars, and orthodontic mini-screws were placed between the maxillary second premolars and the first molars for skeletal anchorage. An en-masse retraction was accomplished in both groups. Patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire at 24 hours (T1), four days (T2), seven days (T3), 14 days (T4), and 28 days (T5) after the surgical intervention using standardized questionnaires. Most questions were answered on a visual analog scale where zero scores meant the absence of pain, discomfort, or functional impairment, and 100 scores meant the worst feelings of these traits.Results: All patients in both groups entered data analysis with no dropouts. All measured levels were significantly greater in the traditional corticotomy group during the first two weeks following the corticotomy intervention in terms of pain perception (P˂0.001), discomfort (P=0.004), and difficulty in chewing (P=0.015). Additionally, during the first week following corticotomy, levels of perception of discomfort (P˂0.001), difficulty in swallowing (P=0.001), and limitation of jaw movement (P˂0.001) were significantly greater in the traditional corticotomy group. Patient satisfaction, the recommendation to a friend, and acceptance of flapless corticotomy were significantly greater than traditional corticotomy (P=0.002, P=0.001, respectively). 78% of patients in the traditional corticotomy group considered it more discomfort than a tooth extraction, while 50% of patients in the flapless corticotomy group considered tooth extraction more discomfort, with a significant difference between the two groups (P=0.001).Conclusions: The levels of negative patients' reported outcomes were significantly smaller with flapless corticotomy than with traditional corticotomy. Traditional corticotomy was associated with mild to moderate levels of pain, swallowing difficulty, moderate levels of discomfort, chewing difficulty, and jaw movement limitation after 24 hours of the surgical procedure. In contrast, flapless corticotomy was less problematic and associated with mild pain, swelling, chewing difficulty, jaw movement limitation, and swallowing difficulty at the same assessment time. Patient satisfaction, acceptance, and recommendation to a friend were greater for flapless corticotomy than traditional intervention.

show abstract

A Novel Method to Accelerate Orthodontic Tooth Movement Using Low-Intensity Direct Electrical Current in Patients Requiring en-Masse Retraction of the Upper Anterior Teeth: A Preliminary Clinical Report

Cited by 2 publications

References 32 publications

Patient-reported outcomes during accelerating the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth using low-intensity electrical stimulation: a randomized controlled trial

Patient-reported outcomes during accelerating the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth using low-intensity electrical stimulation: a randomized controlled trial

Evaluation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Associated With the Acceleration of en-Masse Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth Assisted by Flapless Corticotomy Compared to Traditional Corticotomy: A Two-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About