The Efficacy of Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement by Combining Self-Ligating Brackets With One or More Acceleration Methods: A Systematic Review.

This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using one or more acceleration methods with self-ligating brackets to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement in adults and the associated effects of these interventions. An electronic search of the following databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE) was performed (From January 1990 to November 2021). ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also electronically searched to find any unpublished studies and ongoing trials. The selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involved adult patients treated using self-ligating brackets combined with one or more acceleration methods compared with self-ligating brackets or conditional brackets alone. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. A total of seven RCTs and one controlled clinical trial (CCT) were included in this review. Combining self-ligating brackets with flapless corticotomy, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and infrared light accelerated orthodontic movement by 43% and 50% for surgical methods, 20-50% for LLLT, and 22% for infrared light. Regarding side effects on periodontal tissues, neither flapless corticotomy nor low-frequency vibrational forces caused any damage. Combining self-ligating brackets and flapless corticotomy, low-level laser, or infrared light effectively accelerated orthodontic movement by 20% to 50 %. In contrast, the combination of self-ligating brackets with vibrational forces did not affect speeding tooth movement. The acceleration methods did not have any side effects on the periodontal tissues, but the available evidence was insufficient. There is a need for further primary research regarding the effectiveness of combining self-ligating brackets with acceleration methods and the possible untoward side effects.

Low-level laser therapy effectiveness in reducing initial orthodontic archwire placement pain in premolars extraction cases: a single-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) effectiveness in spontaneous and chewing pain reduction following initial orthodontic archwire placement. METHODS: 26 patients (mean age 20.07 ± 3.13 years) with maxillary Little's Irregularity Index (LII) of 7 mm or more that indicates first maxillary premolars extraction and no medications intake were eligible for this trial. Patients were randomly assigned with 1:1 ratio using simple randomization technique to receive either LLL or placebo treatment. Blinding was applicable for patients only. In the laser group, patients received a single LLL dose (wavelength 830 nm, energy 2 J/point) in four points (2 buccal, 2 palatal) for each maxillary anterior tooth root. Patients in the placebo group had the same laser application procedure without emitting the laser beam. Patients were asked to score spontaneous and chewing pain intensity by filling out a questionnaire with a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) after 1, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h of treatment application. Independent t-test was used to compare the mean pain scores between the laser and placebo groups for both spontaneous and chewing pain at each studied time point. RESULTS: No dropout occurred so the results of the 26 patients were statistically analyzed. Despite some clinical differences observed between the two groups, no statistical significance was found for each studied time point (p > 0.05) for both spontaneous and chewing pain except after 72 h for chewing pain with a VAS score of (18.84 ± 13.44) mm for the laser group compared to (38.15 ± 27.06) mm for the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: LLLT, with the suggested parameters, is not effective in pain reduction following initial orthodontic archwire placement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Name of the registry: Clinicaltrials.gov Trial registration number: NCT02568436. Date of registration: 26 September 2015 'Retrospectively registered'.

Evaluating low-level laser therapy effect on reducing orthodontic pain using two laser energy values: a split-mouth randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Background: No randomized controlled trial before has evaluated the role of low-level laser energy in its analgesic effects in orthodontics. Objective: To evaluate the effect of single application of low-level laser with 4-Joule or 16-Joule energy on pain reduction following elastomeric separators placement. Trial design: A two-arm parallel-group single-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial, with implementation of split-mouth technique in each group. Materials and methods: Twenty-six patients in need of orthodontic treatment with a fixed orthodontic appliance were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the 4-Joule or the 16-Joule laser energy group. Elastomeric separators were applied for the mandibular first molars. For each patient one molar received a single low-level laser dose using an 830-nm Ga-Al-As laser device with either 4-Joule or 16-Joule laser beam energy, while the other molar received a placebo treatment by applying the laser device in the same method and parameters as the counterpart molar without emitting the laser beam. The molar to be irradiated was also randomly chosen using simple randomization technique. Allocation was concealed and patients were blinded to which side would receive the laser irradiation. Main outcome measure was the degree of pain scored during mastication for each mandibular first molar after 1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours of both laser and placebo treatments application. A questionnaire with an 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used for pain assessment. Results: Thirty-six patients were evaluated for eligibility, 10 of them were excluded making the final randomized number 26 patients. One patient dropped out later for not completing the questionnaire. Accordingly, the results of 25 patients were statistically analysed. No statistical significance was found for both low-level laser energy values in comparison to the corresponding placebo treatments. No harms were encountered. Limitations: Intervention provider was not blinded to the intervention. Conclusion: Low-level laser therapy, applied at two different laser energy values, is ineffective in relieving elastomeric separators induced orthodontic pain. Trial registration: This trial was not registered. Funding: No funding to be declared.

Low-level laser therapy effectiveness in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement of crowded maxillary incisors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial involved 26 patients with severe to extreme maxillary incisors irregularity according to Little's irregularity index, indicating two first premolars extraction. Patients were randomly assigned to either the laser group or the control group (13 each). Following premolars extraction, orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances was initiated for both groups. Immediately after insertion of the first archwire, patients in the laser group received a LLL dose from an 830-nm wavelength Ga-Al-As semiconductor laser device with energy of 2 J/point. The laser was applied to each maxillary incisor's root at four points (two buccal, two palatal). Application was repeated on days 3, 7, 14, and then every 15 days starting from the second month until the end of the leveling and alignment stage. Alignment progress was evaluated on the study casts taken before inserting the first archwire (T0), after 1 month of treatment commencement (T1), after 2 months (T2), and at the end of the leveling and alignment stage (T3). The outcome measures were the overall time needed for leveling and alignment and the leveling and alignment improvement percentage. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the overall treatment time (P < .001) and the leveling and alignment improvement percentage at T1 (P = .004) and T2; (P = .001). CONCLUSION: LLLT is an effective method for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement.