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

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.

Micro-osteo perforation effects as an intervention on canine retraction

“…Several factors affect the rate of tooth movement (Abdelhameed and Refai, 2018, Elkattan et al, 2019, Patterson et al, 2016:Makrygiannakis et al, 2018, Jiang et al, 2017, Jahanbakhshi et al, 2016). It is reasonable to assume that the effect of occlusal interferences was minimal in this study as only class II div I malocclusion cases were included.…”

“…These include increase in force magnitude and type, regional drug applications, vibratory forces, lasers, and light emitting diode, temporary anchorage devices, inciting regional osteopenia to accelerate the remodelling activity and flapless corticotomy procedure. (Addanki et al, 2017, Chung et al, 2015, Hoffmann et al, 2017, Liou et al, 2011, Kundi, 2018, Abdelhameed and Refai, 2018, Alkebsi et al, 2018, Cassetta et al, 2016, Cassetta et al, 2017).…”

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

“…There was no standardized timeline for intervention initiation and canine retraction after extraction of the first maxillary premolars. Two studies initiated canine retraction immediately after the extraction of the maxillary first premolars, 31,36 one waited 1 to 2 weeks, 46 two studies reported waiting around 3 months, 35,38 one reported waiting 4 months, 43 two reported waiting 6 months, 39,50 one study did not report the timing of canine retraction, 44 and 10 reported waiting until levelling and aligning were complete and the patient was placed in the working wire to initiate the intervention and OTM 31,32,40‐42,45,47‐49,51 …”

“…We conducted three sensitivity analyses: (a) excluding any high risk of bias studies; (b) excluding any studies which were considered clinically as significant outliers (eg a study with increased frequency and number of MOPs 31 ); and (c) excluding a less invasive corticotomy technique (laser‐assisted flapless corticotomy [LAFC]) from the corticotomy group 32 …”

Micro-osteoperforations and Its Effect on the Rate of Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review

“…Multiple MOP procedures were performed in various studies to achieve this continued effect of cytokine release after giving MOPs, which showed a constant influence for a month on average. 3,9,17,31 Cramer et al 3 in their split-mouth animal study, however, demonstrated the application of eight MOPs at a depth of 7 mm on seven mature male beagle dogs in the jaw side randomly selected through computerized random number generation for the allocation of experimental and control sides. Contrary to the significant results in many studies, 14,17,28,29 there was not an increase in tooth movement rates due to MOPs.…”