Effect of light-emitting diode-mediated photobiomodulation on extraction space closure in adolescents and young adults: A split-mouth, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This split-mouth trial aimed to examine the effects of light-emitting diode (LED)-mediated photobiomodulation compared with no photobiomodulation on maxillary canine distalization. METHODS: Twenty participants (10 males and 10 females; aged 11-20 years) requiring bilateral extraction of maxillary first premolars were included from the Sydney Dental Hospital waiting list. After premolar extractions, leveling, and alignment, canines were retracted on 0.020-in stainless steel wires with coil springs delivering 150 g of force to each side. Each patient's right side was randomly assigned to experimental or control using www.randomisation.com, and allocation concealment was performed with sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. The experimental side received 850 nm wavelength, 60 mW/cm2 power, continuous LED with OrthoPulse device (Biolux Research Ltd, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) for 5 min/d. For the control side, the device was blocked with opaque black film. Patients were reviewed at 4-week intervals for force reactivation and intraoral scanning over 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the amount of tooth movement, and secondary outcomes were anchorage loss and canine rotation, all measured digitally. Blinding for study participants and the treating clinician was not possible; however, blinding was done for the measurements by deidentifying the digital scans. Linear mixed models were implemented for the data analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen participants concluded the study. Data analysis showed that the treatment × time interaction was not significant, suggesting no difference in space closure (unstandardized regression coefficient [b], 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.05 to 0.29; P = 0.17), canine rotation (b, 0.21; 95% CI, -0.82 to 1.25; P = 0.69), and anchorage loss (b, -0.01, 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.26, P = 0.94). No harms were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Daily 5-minute application of LED did not result in clinically meaningful differences during extraction space closure compared with no LED application. REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000652471). PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement. FUNDING: This research was funded by the Australian Society of Orthodontists Foundation for Research and Education.

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.