Effectiveness of low frequency vibration on the rate of canine retraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

To investigate the effectiveness of AcceleDent Aura vibrating device on the rate of canine retraction. Thirty-two patients requiring extraction of upper first premolars and canine retraction were randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio into either no-appliance group or the AcceleDent Aura appliance group. Canine retraction was done applying 150gm of retraction force using NiTi coil springs on 16 × 22 stainless steel archwires. The duration of the study was 4 months. Models were collected and digitized directly after extraction of upper first premolars and at monthly intervals during canine retraction for recording the monthly as well as the total distance moved by the canine. Digitized models were superimposed on the initial model and data were statistically analyzed. Anchorage loss, rotation, tipping, torque and root condition were evaluated using cone beam computed tomography imaging. Pain was evaluated by visual analog scale. No patients were dropped-out during this study. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the total distance travelled by the canine (P = 0.436), as well as the rate of canine retraction per month (P = 0.17). Root condition was the same for the two groups. Regarding the pain level, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at day 0 (P = 0.721), after 24 h (P = 0.882), after 72 h (P = 0.378) and after 7 days (P = 0.964). AcceleDent Aura was not able to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. Pain level couldn't be reduced by vibrational force with an AcceleDent device during orthodontic treatment. Root condition was not affected by the vibrational forces.

The efficiency of mandibular mini-implants in reducing adverse effects of class II elastics in adolescent female patients: a single blinded, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Excessive proclination of lower incisors and other undesirable consequences usually result from the use of class II elastics during orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to attempt to limit the adverse effects of class II elastics by the use of mini implants placed in the mandibular arch in adolescent class II female patients. METHODS: The sample comprised 28 patients, (a mean age of 15.66 ± 2 years for intervention group and 15.1 ± 2.2 years for conventional group) with one-fourth or one-half unit class II canine relationship. The sample was divided into two equal groups. Randomization was carried out by a computer sequence generator with a 1:1 allocation ratio. In the intervention group, the mini implants were inserted between the lower second premolar and first molar, while the conventional group underwent regular class II elastics therapy. The active elastics treatment time was 8 months for both groups. Results were assessed by measurements from pre- and post-elastics lateral cephalometric radiographs. RESULTS: The change in L1 inclination (0.97 ± 0.92°) and L1 AP position (0.31 ± 0.63 mm) did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups, but a statistically significant difference was found in the U1 retroclination (5.23 ± 1.92°) and U1 distal movement (4.05 ± 1.4 mm) [P ˂ 0.001] and [P ˂ 0.05] respectively in favor of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Mini-implants in conjunction with class II elastics had no skeletal effect, mainly dentoalveolar and it did not prevent the proclination of lower incisors. There was more distal movement in the upper incisors in the skeletal anchorage group which helped in enhancing the camouflaging of class II malocclusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered "FUE.REC (10)/10-2018" at the FUE registration council for clinical trials/IOP Orthodontic Program October 2018.

Malocclusion and Temporomandibular Disorders: Verification of the Controversy.

AIMS: To investigate the dental and skeletal aspects of malocclusion in the anteroposterior and vertical dimensions in a sample of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients and to correlate these aspects with the signs and symptoms of TMD. METHODS: A total of 150 TMD patients were divided into five groups according to the Diagnostic Criteria for TMD: Group 1 = myalgia (M); Group 2 = disc displacement with reduction (DDWR); Group 3 = disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR); Group 4 = degenerative disorders (D); and Group 5 = subluxation (S). Molar and canine relations, overjet, overbite, occlusal guidance, occlusal interferences, and centric slides were recorded for each patient, and the skeletal craniofacial patterns were analyzed for each patient using cone beam computed tomography. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the variable means of the different groups. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlations of quantitative continuous variables. Significance level was considered at P < .05. RESULTS: No significant difference was found among the groups regarding any aspects of dental occlusion except for mediotrusive interferences, which were significantly higher in Group 3 (DDWOR) (P = .02). Regarding skeletal craniofacial pattern, Group 4 (D) had significantly smaller mean ± standard deviation sella-nasion-B (SNB) point angle (74.31 ± 3.04 degrees) than Group 3 (DDWOR) (78.04 ± 4.88 degrees), and Group 1 (M) showed the greatest SNB angle (79.87 ± 3.73 degrees) (P = .03). Group 3 (DDWOR) showed significantly greater mean mandibular plane/SN angle (39.56 ± 6.19 degrees) than Group 1 (M) (34.73 ± 5.65 degrees) (P = .04). Relations between occlusal variables and TMD parameters were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: This study provides robust evidence to diminish the TMD-malocclusion association, especially in myogenic types of TMD.

Effectiveness of using a Vibrating Device in Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of current systematic review was to evaluate the efficiency of the vibrating devices in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. METHODS: A systemic unrestricted search was done in three electronic databases up to July 2018. A manual search was also performed. Eligibility criteria included Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi randomized clinical trials and prospective controlled trials (CCTs) comparing the rate of the tooth movement with and without vibrating devices. The study characteristics and data extraction of the vibrating device group and control group were performed by two reviewers independently. RESULTS: Seven articles were eligible to be included in the qualitative analysis. Three of them were included in meta analysis. One hundred and five patients received vibrating device to accelerate orthodontic treatment while forty-nine patients received shame device and seventy-eight patients were control group. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between vibrating devices group and control group. There is no evidence that vibrating appliances are effective in acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement.