Evidence Hub

Comparison of Rate of Tooth Movement, Root Resorption and Pulp Vitality during En masse Anterior Retraction with Micro-osteoperforation and Low Level Laser Therapy: A Randomised Clinical Trial

Allen Joseph, G. Prashantha, S. Sabrish, Roshan M Sagarkar, S. Mathew

Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 2022

11 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) are rapidly gaining popularity in clinical practice due their proven success in accelerating tooth movement and acceptable patient compliance. However, literature shows an inconsistent and variable evidence of their iatrogenic effects on the root and pulp due to biological variations of the samples chosen by the previously studies. Aim: To evaluate and compare the rate of tooth movement, changes in amount of external root resorption and pulp vitality in teeth during en masse anterior retraction associated with MOP and LLLT using split mouth technique. Materials and Methods: This was a double blinded, single center split mouth randomised clinical trial conducted at Faculty of Dental Sciences, MS Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India from March 2019 to October 2019. Total of 11 patients with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion which required all four first premolar extractions were included in the study. Nickel Titanium (NiTi) closed coil springs were used for en masse retraction in upper and lower arches with force of 150g per side. Root resorption of all anterior teeth was evaluated using Cone Beam Computed Tomography systems (CBCT) and pulp vitality was checked using cold test after 4 months. The data was entered in Microsoft excel and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS) version 18.5 (SPSS Inc, Chicago) software was used for data entry and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 11 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free