scholarly journals Corrigendum: Does low-frequency vibration have an effect on aligner treatment? A single-centre, randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 444-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Lombardo ◽  
Angela Arreghini ◽  
Luis T Huanca Ghislanzoni ◽  
Giuseppe Siciliani
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Low Frequency Vibration

Does low-frequency vibration have an effect on aligner treatment? A single-centre, randomized controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-443
Author(s):  
Luca Lombardo ◽  
Angela Arreghini ◽  
Luis T Huanca Ghislanzoni ◽  
Giuseppe Siciliani
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Tooth Movement ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Low Frequency Vibration ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Summary Background Low-frequency vibrations have been proposed as a means of accelerating tooth movement and reducing orthodontic treatment times. Objective To determine any differences in the accuracy of dental movement in patients treated with a low-frequency vibration aligner protocol and/or by reducing the aligner replacement interval with respect to a conventional protocol. Design This trial was designed as a single-centre, randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods Participants: Patients (aged 27.1 ± 9.0 years) who required orthodontic treatment with aligners. Randomization: Patients were randomly allocated to three arms as determined by a computer-randomization scheme. Group A were assigned a conventional protocol (aligners replaced every 14 days); group B also used a low-frequency vibration device for 20 minutes per day; group C followed the same vibration protocol but replaced their aligners every 7 days. Blinding: The operator who performed the set-up and the one who analysed the data were blinded to the group of the patients. Outcome: Pre- and post-treatment digital models were analysed using VAM software to identify the accuracy/imprecision of dental movements. One-way analysis of variance (P < 0.05) and the Bonferroni post hoc test were used to identify any statistically significant differences between the three arms in terms of the accuracy of tooth movement versus the prescription. Results Numbers analysed: A total of 45 patients (15 for group) were analysed (i.e. 2286 dental movements). Outcome: No statistically significant differences emerged between groups A and C in the upper arch, or among groups A, B, and C in the lower. Group B displayed significantly greater accuracy with respect to group A in upper incisor rotation (P = 0.016), and to group C in vestibulolingual (P = 0.007) and mesiodistal tipping (P = 0.029) of the upper canines, and vestibulolingual tipping of the upper molars (P = 0.0001). Harms: No adverse events or side-effects were registered. Conclusions Considering all tooth and movement types of the 45 participants, the mean total imprecision was 2.1 ± 0.9 degrees, with respect to a mean prescription of 5.7 ± 2.2 degrees. There was no difference in accuracy between replacing the aligners accompanied by low-frequency vibration every 7 days and replacing them every 14 days without vibration. Moreover, low-frequency vibration seemed to improve the accuracy of a conventional protocol in terms of upper incisor rotation. Trial registration The German Clinical Trials Register (DRK00015613).

Early headgear activator treatment of Class II malocclusion with excessive overjet: a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Kallunki ◽  
Lars Bondemark ◽  
Liselotte Paulsson
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Early Treatment ◽  
Untreated Control ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Class Ii Malocclusion ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Summary Objectives To compare early headgear activator treatment of Class II malocclusion with excessive overjet with untreated control subjects in terms of the primary outcomes overjet and overbite as well as the effect regarding oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), lip closure, incidence of trauma, and skeletal changes. Trial design Two-arm parallel group single-centre randomized controlled trial. Material and methods A total of 60 children (mean age 9.5 years) presenting a Class II malocclusion with excessive overjet were recruited. The trial was designed as intention-to-treat and the participants randomized by an independent person not involved in the trial to either early treatment with headgear activator or to an untreated control group (UG). Dental and skeletal variables as well as registrations of OHRQoL, lip closure, and incidence of trauma were recorded. For the treatment group, data were registered at baseline before treatment and when treatment was finished, corresponding to approximately 2 years. For the UG, registrations were made at baseline and at 11 years of age. Observers were blinded to treatment allocation when assessing outcomes. Results Early treatment with headgear activator significantly decreased overjet and improved molar relationship when compared with untreated controls. The effects were primarily due to dentoalveolar changes. Early treatment had no evident effect regarding OHRQoL, lip closure, or incidence of trauma. Lack of cooperation resulted in unsuccessful treatments for 27% of the patients. Limitations The trial was a single-centre trial and can thus be less generalizable. Conclusions The main treatment effect of early headgear activator treatment of Class II malocclusion with excessive overjet is reduction of overjet. Trial registration NCT04508322.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document