Effect of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement—a systematic review and a meta-analysis

Abstract

Background The micro-osteoperforation can be used to increase the rate of tooth movement, simplify complex orthodontic movements, and also help adjust the anchorage but there are conflicting reports on the effectiveness and adverse effects of this intervention. Objectives The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Search methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, ISI web of science, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL online databases for studies measuring the effects of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement from inception to February 2019 was performed. Selection criteria Based on the PICO model, human studies which evaluated the effects of MOP on the rate of tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were selected for this review. Data collection and analysis The relevant data from the eligible studies were extracted using piloted custom extraction forms. The data were combined and analysed using inverse-variance random-effect meta-analysis and the mean difference was used for comparing the outcome measures. Results Six randomized clinical trials were finally included in this meta-analysis. The rate of canine retraction per month was significantly higher in the MOP group [mean difference (MD) = 0.45 mm, 95% CI = 0.17–0.74]. These results were similar with regard to different malocclusions, the jaw on which it was performed, and MOP methods. The patients did not report any significant differences in terms of pain severity levels after MOP. With regard to the adverse effects, one study reported higher amounts of root resorption among patients undergoing MOP. Conclusions The rate of tooth movement was increased after performing MOP but in at least one study higher root resorption was observed. Therefore, the use of MOP can be recommended after weighing the benefits and disadvantages this intervention can bring for each patient. Registration The protocol for this review was registered via crd.york.ac.uk/prospero with the ID CRD42019115499.

Efficacy and safety of different interventions to accelerate maxillary canine retraction following premolar extraction: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

“…For comparison, MOP alone ranked fifth for the included adjunctive therapies and was efficacious in increasing the rate of OTM only in the first month of treatment by 0.35 mm/month. This finding is similar to a recent meta‐analysis that found a small and clinically insignificant increase in OTM (0.45 mm/month) after the use of MOP 72 . Another more recent systematic review and meta‐analysis that concluded that a single application of MOPs does not accelerate OTM 73 .…”

Is Piezocision effective in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the piezocision procedure in accelerating the canine retraction rate with a statistically significant difference. Similar results regarding accelerating tooth movement were made in other studies [12,16,17,36,[45][46][47] but differed in the effect size. Interestingly, Fu et al [17] reported similar results in their meta-analysis, but they included five different surgical interventions, one of them was in combination with laser and pooled heterogeneous methodological and clinical studies in the same meta-analysis.…”

The effect of different micro-osteoperforation depths on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A single-center, single-blind, randomized clinical trial

“… 23 In a recently published meta-analysis, MOPs have been stated to increase the amount of canine retraction at the rate of 0.45 mm/month, and this change was found to be statistically significant. 24 In our previously published study, we have reported that 3 MOPs with a 5-mm depth could accelerate canine movement significantly at the rate of 1.76 ± 0.66 mm/month, while the rate in the control group was 1.36 ± 0.81 mm/month (with a mean increase of 0.40 mm/month). 18 In the current study, the difference in the mean rate of canine retraction between the experimental (1.25 mm) and control groups (0.88 mm) was 0.37 mm, indicating a similarity with both the literature and our previous data.…”