Comparison of the efficacy of two-time versus one-time micro-osteoperforation on maxillary canine retraction in orthodontic patients: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Author(s):  
Abhijeet A. Jaiswal ◽  
Hamza Parvez Siddiqui ◽  
Vilas D. Samrit ◽  
Ritu Duggal ◽  
Om Prakash Kharbanda ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Salgado da Matta Cid Pinto Fernandes ◽  
Daniel Santos Fonseca Figueiredo ◽  
Dauro Douglas Oliveira ◽  
Ricardo Gontijo Houara ◽  
Wellington José Rody ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of alveolar corticotomy (AC) and piezocision (PZ) in accelerating maxillary canine retraction, and their effects on multiple bone remodeling expression in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). A split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical trial was performed at the Department of Orthodontics of Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Eligibility criteria included orthodontic need for first maxillary premolars extractions, followed by canine retraction. Fifty-one adult patients were recruited and randomly assigned to 3 groups (allocation ratio 1:1:1). Random allocation of surgical or control interventions to each side of the maxillary arch was also conducted: G1 − AC × Control, G2 − PZ × Control, and G3 − AC × PZ. Both the definition of the group and the decision of the experimental or control sides were randomized by the software. Intraoral digital scans were performed before, 7 and 14 days after the beginning of canine retraction, and subsequently, at every 14 days until a maximum period of 6 months. GCF samples were collected before, and 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The primary outcome consisted in the cumulative distal movement of the canines and was measured by digital model superimposition. The secondary outcome consisted in GCF bone remodeling samples that were quantified in a multiplex immunoassay. The measurements examinator was properly blinded. Results Forty-seven patients, 19 males and 28 females, were analyzed (mean age 20.72, SD = 6.66, range 15 to 38). Statistically significant differences in canine distal movement between AC and control in G1 were not observed (p > 0.05). In G2, PZ showed lower cumulative incisal and cervical measurements than control from the 2nd to the 24th week (p < 0.05). In G3, PZ showed a lower cumulative incisal and cervical measurements than AC from the16th to the 24th week (p < 0.05). In all groups, differences on biomarkers expression occurred at specific timepoints (p < 0.05), but a distinct pattern was not observed. Conclusions AC and PZ were not effective to accelerate maxillary canine retraction and did not induce a distinct pattern of biomarker expression. Trial registration NCT03089996. Registered 24 March 2017 - Registered.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meenu Gehlot ◽  
Rekha Sharma ◽  
Shikha Tewari ◽  
Davender Kumar ◽  
Ambika Gupta

ABSTRACT Objectives To evaluate the effect of fixed orthodontic treatment on periodontal parameters in periodontally compromised adult orthodontic patients. Materials and Methods This was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Thirty-six periodontally compromised adult patients (mean age: 29.67 ± 4.8 years) were randomly allocated to either test (perio-ortho) or control group (perio). After periodontal stabilization in both groups, orthodontic treatment was started in the test group, whereas the control group remained on periodontal maintenance only. Evaluation and comparison of clinical parameters (plaque index [PI]; gingival index [GI]; bleeding on probing [BOP]; probing depth [PD]; clinical attachment level [CAL]) of both groups was assessed at three time intervals: T0 (base line), T1 (at start of orthodontic treatment), and T2 (1 year after start of orthodontic treatment). Radiological parameters (alveolar bone levels [ABL]) were recorded using CBCT at T1 and T2. Results Intragroup analysis showed statistically significant improvement in all clinical and radiological periodontal parameters in both groups (P ≤ .05). Intergroup comparison revealed improvement in the periodontal parameters was not statistically significant between the groups (P ≥ .05). Subgroup analysis showed reduction in the number of moderate and severe periodontitis sites in both groups with significant more gains in ABL in the test group compared to the control group. Conclusions Orthodontic treatment after periodontal stabilization does not have any detrimental effect on periodontal health in adult periodontally compromised orthodontic patients and may add to the benefits achieved by periodontal treatment alone.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-47
Author(s):  
Mohammad Karim Soltani ◽  
Farhad Jafari ◽  
Mojgan Taheri ◽  
Ali Reza Soltanian ◽  
Masoumeh Khoshhal ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document