Effect of light-emitting photobiomodulation therapy on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement : A randomized controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of light-emitting photobiomodulation therapy (LPT) on the rate of canine distalization. METHODS: This study was performed on 60 extraction spaces formed by extraction of the upper first premolars of 30 patients (15 in the LPT group and 15 in the control group). Paul Gjessing (PG)-segmented canine retraction springs were used for canine distalization. In the LPT group, the Biolux OrthoPulse™ (Biolux Research Ltd, Vancouver, Canada) intraoral device (wavelength 850 nm LED light and an energy density of 63 mW/cm2 [±13 mW/cm2]) was used for 5 min per day over a period of 84 days. For each patient, the diagnosis was based on standard orthodontic documentation with photographs, digital model casts, and cephalometric and panoramic radiographs. The anchorage loss, canine rotations, canine inclinations, and molar inclinations were also evaluated on plaster models obtained on days 0, 21, 42, 63, and 84. The models were measured by using 3Shape OrthoAnalyzer software (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Measurements were made by a researcher and a blinded clinician. For statistical comparison, a paired-samples t­test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used at the p < 0.05 level. RESULTS: The mean canine distalization rates were 1.36 mm/21 days and 1.02 mm/21 days in the LPT and control groups, respectively, and were statistically greater in the LPT group (p < 0.001). The amount of anchorage loss, canine rotations, canine inclinations and molar inclinations were not significantly different between the LPT and control groups at any of the timepoints. CONCLUSION: LPT has the potential to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement by 33%.

Mandibular posterior space in class II division 1 and 2 malocclusion in various age groups.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the mandibular posterior space in subjects with skeletal class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions in two different age groups. METHODS: Pretreatment cephalometric radiographs of 160 patients from 9 to 13 years of age (n = 80) and 15 to 18 years of age (n = 80) with class II division 1 or division 2 malocclusion were used for the study. Equal numbers of male and female patients (n = 20) were included in the two age groups in each of the malocclusion groups. Eight linear and six angular measurements were taken for mandibular posterior space evaluation. The data obtained from the study were compared using the independent t-test. RESULTS: In the present study, the mandibular posterior space was greater in both malocclusion groups in subjects aged 15-18 years than in those aged 9-13 years (p < 0.05). The available posterior spaces behind the mandibular first molars were 4.4 mm and 6.3 mm in females (class II divisions 1 and 2, respectively) and 5.3 mm and 7 mm in males (class II divisions 1 and 2, respectively) in the 9­ to 13-year-old age group. This space increased significantly by 6.9 mm (p < 0.001) and 3.2 mm (p < 0.01) in females (class II division 1 and 2, respectively) and 3.8 mm (p < 0.01) and 3 mm (p < 0.01) in males (class II division 1 and 2, respectively) in the 15- to 18-year-old age group. CONCLUSION: Class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions had similar and inadequate posterior space dimensions for the eruption of the third and an unknown portion of the second molars.