The effects of a clinically feasible application of low-level laser therapy on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A triple-blind, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This split-mouth trial aimed to investigate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the amount of maxillary canine distalization when applied every 4 weeks over 12 weeks. METHODS: Twenty-two adolescents and young adults (15 female, 7 male; aged 13-25 years; n = 22) requiring bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions were recruited. After extractions and leveling-alignment, canines were retracted using closed-coil nickel-titanium springs delivering 150 g of force. LLLT was applied to 8 intraoral points on the buccal and palatal sides around the canine root for 10 seconds per point, on day 0, 28, and 56 with the control side receiving sham application. Alginate impressions were taken every 4 weeks on day 0, 28, 56, and 84. The amount of tooth movement, anchorage loss, and canine rotation were measured digitally. Randomization was generated using www.randomisation.com and allocation concealment through sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Participants, operator, and statistic assessor were blinded. Linear regression modeling accounting for clustering within each patient was used to identify differences between LLLT and control sides. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients completed the study. The total amount of tooth movement was similar in the LLLT (2.55 ± 0.73 mm) and control group (2.30 ± 0.86 mm), whereas 0.25 mm (95% confidence interval, -0.21, 0.71 mm) of difference was insignificant (P = 0.27). No significant differences were found for anchorage loss (P = 0.22) or canine rotation (P = 0.25). No harms were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Application of LLLT every 4 weeks did not result in differences in the amount of tooth movement, anchorage loss, and canine rotation during extraction space closure.

Physical properties of root cementum: Part 27. Effect of low-level laser therapy on the repair of orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption: A double-blind, split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this 2-arm-parallel split-mouth trial was to investigate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the repair of orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR). METHODS: Twenty patients were included in this study, with 1 side randomly assigned to receive LLLT, and the other side served as a sham. Eligibility criteria included need for bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions as part of fixed appliance treatment. OIIRR was generated by applying 150 g of buccal tipping force on the maxillary first premolars for 4 weeks. After the active force was removed, the teeth were retained for 6 weeks. LLLT commenced with weekly laser applications using a continuous beam 660-nm, 75-mW aluminum-gallium-indium-phosphorus laser with 1/e2 spot size of 0.260 cm2, power density of 0.245 W/cm2, and fluence of 3.6 J/cm2. Contact application was used at 8 points buccally and palatally above the mucosa over each tooth root for 15 seconds with a total treatment time of 2 minutes. After 6 weeks, the maxillary first premolars were extracted and scanned with microcomputed tomography for primary outcome OIIRR calculations. Subgroup analysis included assessment per root surface, per vertical third, and sites of heaviest compressive forces (buccal-cervical and palato-apical). Randomization was generated using www.randomization.com, and allocation was concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was used for treatment and outcome assessments. Two-tailed paired t tests were used to determine whether there were any statistically significant differences in total crater volumes of the laser vs the sham treated teeth. RESULTS: Total crater volumes were 0.746 mm3 for the laser treated teeth and 0.779 mm3 for the sham. There was a mean difference of 0.033 ± 0.39 mm3 (95% CI, -0.21 to 0.148 mm3) greater resorption crater volume in the sham group compared with the laser group; this was not statistically significant (P = 0.705). No harm was observed. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was found between LLLT and sham control groups in OIIRR repair.

The effect of low-level laser therapy on orthodontically induced root resorption: a pilot double blind randomized controlled trial.

Background: The effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement has been extensively studied; however, there is limited knowledge on the use of LLLT on orthodontic root resorption. Objective: To investigate the effect of LLLT on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and to compare the difference between pulsed and continuous LLLT on OIIRR. Trial design: Double-blind, single-centre 3-arm parallel split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Participants: Twenty adolescent patients who required bilateral maxillary first premolar (MFP) orthodontic extractions were recruited from the Sydney Dental Hospital between October 2014 and December 2014. Intervention: All MFPs were tipped buccally for 28 days to induce OIIRR. The experimental premolars (n = 20) received LLLT and the control premolars (n = 20) received placebo-laser on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 21. Ten experimental premolars received LLLT via continuous delivery and 10 received pulsed delivery. Laser parameter: AlGaAs diode laser of 808 nm wavelength, 0.18 W power, 1.6 J per point, and duration of 9s for continuous mode and 4.5 s for pulsed mode. Outcome: The difference in root resorption crater volume between LLLT and placebo-laser and continuous or pulsed laser delivery after 28 days. Randomization: Randomization was computer-generated, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. Blinding: The participants and operator were blinded. Results: Eighty-eight patients were screened and 20 patients were randomized. Forty premolars were analysed. LLLT resulted in 23 per cent less root resorption compared to the placebo (P = 0.026). Pulsed laser delivery resulted in 5 per cent less root resorption than continuous; however, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.823). No harm was observed. Conclusion: Teeth treated with LLLT had less total root resorption than placebo-laser. Furthermore, there was minimal difference between pulsed or continuous delivery of LLLT. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000829415). Protocol: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

The extent of root resorption and tooth movement following the application of ascending and descending magnetic forces: a prospective split mouth, microcomputed-tomography study.

OBJECTIVE: Various factors have been examined in the literature in an attempt to reduce the incidence and severity of root resorption. The purpose of the present investigation is to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in relation to force level using gradually increasing (ascending) and decreasing (descending) orthodontic force generated by magnets on the severity of Orthodontically Induced Inflammatory Iatrogenic Root Resorption (OIIRR) and amount of tooth movement. METHODS: Twenty maxillary first premolars from 10 patients were subjected to ascending (25-225 g, magnets in attraction) and descending (225 to 25 g, magnets in repulsion) buccal forces using a split mouth design over an 8-week period. Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were taken at week 0, 4, and 8 to record the tooth movement. After 8 weeks, the teeth were extracted, scanned, with micro-CT in 16.9 µm resolution, and the root resorption craters were localized circumferentially and quantified at each level of the root. RESULTS: The total volume of OIIRR with ascending force was 1.20 mm3, and with descending force was 1.25 mm3, and there was no statistically significant difference between them. OIIRR on the palatal surface (0.012 mm3) was significantly less than on the buccal surface (0.057 mm3) and than on the mesial surface (0.035 mm3). There is no statistically significant difference in the degree of OIIRR between different level of the root (cervical, middle, and apical) at different surfaces. Moreover, the amount of tooth movement, at 0-, 4-, and 8-week interval, secondary to an ascending and descending force application was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: There is no short-term (8 weeks) statistically significant difference between orthodontic ascending and descending forces, from 25 to 225 g and from 225 to 25 g, respectively, in term of severity and location of OIIRR as well as the amount of tooth movement. The buccal surface of the root showed highest degree of OIIRR compared to other root's surfaces.