Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Associated With the Acceleration of Canine Retraction by Piezosurgery in Comparison With Low-Level Laser Therapy: A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract

Background and objectives Recently, both surgical and non-surgical interventions have gained popularity in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement, but there is no randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing both modalities in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during maxillary canine retraction. Therefore, this trial aimed to assess the PROMs associated with either low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or piezocision-assisted acceleration in the context of maxillary canine retraction. Materials and methods This was a single-blinded, single-center, three-arm RCT. A total of 54 patients (12 males, 42 females, mean age 20.65 ± 2.85) whose treatment needed upper-first-premolar extraction to facilitate canine retraction were enrolled and randomly divided into three groups: piezocision group (PG), LLLT group (LLLTG), and the control group (CG). Standardized questionnaires using a visual analog scale were distributed to patients at five assessment times: 1 (T1), 3 (T2), 7 (T3), 14 (T4), and 28 days following the canine retraction initiation (T5). The patients’ pain, discomfort, swelling, chewing difficulty, satisfaction, and acceptance were recorded. Results Regarding pain and discomfort, the levels were significantly lower in the LLLTG during the first two weeks of canine retraction compared to the other two groups (p<0.017). At the same time, these levels were significantly greater in the PG than the CG in the first week of canine retraction (p<0.017). Patients in the PG had a "mild to moderate" perception of swelling at T1 and T2, which was significantly different than that of the other two groups (p<0.001). Regarding chewing difficulty, the levels in the LLLTG were significantly lower than those in PG at the first three assessment times (p<0.017). Patients’ satisfaction with canine speed was significantly greater in the intervention groups compared to the CG (p<0.001). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were found between the three groups regarding satisfaction with gum appearance surrounding the canine (p=0.061) and acceptance (p=0.125). Conclusion The LLLT-assisted canine retraction was associated with significantly lower negative patient-reported outcomes during the first two weeks of retraction than piezocision-assisted retraction. However, the levels of pain and discomfort were significantly greater in the piezocision-assisted retraction group than those in the conventional canine retraction group, which in turn were greater than those with the LLLT-assisted canine retraction group during the first week of retraction. Patient satisfaction and acceptance were high with both piezocision and LLLT interventions.