RESUMO
Background: Orthodontic treatment often spans several months or even years, which can be burdensome for patients. Biomodulation techniques have emerged as potential strategies to expedite orthodontic tooth movement. Materials and Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with a sample of 60 orthodontic patients, aged 12-30 years, requiring fixed appliance therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to either the biomodulation group (n = 30) or the control group (n = 30). The biomodulation group received low-level laser therapy (LLLT) along with traditional orthodontic treatment, while the control group received conventional orthodontic treatment without LLLT. Treatment duration, pain perception, and orthodontic tooth movement were assessed during the study period. Results: The results demonstrated a significant reduction in treatment duration in the biomodulation group compared to the control group. The biomodulation group exhibited a 30% reduction in overall treatment time, with an average treatment duration of 8.4 months, while the control group required an average of 12 months (P < 0.001). Pain perception during orthodontic adjustments was lower in the biomodulation group. Additionally, biomodulation was associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of tooth movement, as evidenced by a 20% reduction in the time required to achieve desired tooth alignment (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Biomodulation through low-level laser therapy represents a promising adjunct to traditional orthodontic treatment, significantly accelerating tooth movement and reducing treatment duration.
RESUMO
Background: Class II malocclusions are a common orthodontic problem, often requiring comprehensive treatment to achieve proper occlusion and facial harmony. Early orthodontic intervention in the mixed dentition phase has been advocated to address these issues. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 150 patients with class II malocclusions who underwent early orthodontic treatment between the ages of 7 and 10 years. The treatment included fixed or removable appliances, headgear, and functional appliances, depending on individual needs. Records of their initial malocclusion severity, treatment modalities, and long-term follow-up data (mean follow-up duration of 10 years) were collected and analyzed. Stability was assessed by evaluating overjet and overbite changes from post-treatment to the long-term follow-up. Results: The initial mean overjet and overbite values were 8.5 mm and 4.0 mm, respectively. Following early orthodontic intervention, these values were significantly reduced to 3.0 mm and 1.5 mm, respectively (P < 0.001). At the long-term follow-up, the mean overjet and overbite remained stable at 3.2 mm and 1.6 mm, respectively. Analysis revealed that 85% of patients maintained their corrected class II occlusion within clinically acceptable limits, while 15% experienced minor relapse requiring minimal additional treatment. Conclusion: Early orthodontic treatment in class II malocclusions can lead to significant improvements in overjet and overbite, and these corrections tend to remain stable over the long term.
RESUMO
Background: Accelerated orthodontic treatment has gained popularity in recent years as patients seek shorter treatment durations. Microosteoperforations (MOPs) have emerged as a minimally invasive technique to expedite tooth movement. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of MOPs in accelerating orthodontic treatment with conventional methods. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 60 orthodontic patients requiring dental alignment. The participants were divided into two groups: Group A (MOPs) and Group B (conventional orthodontic treatment). In Group A, MOPs were performed at the beginning of the treatment. Both groups received monthly orthodontic adjustments. Treatment duration, rate of tooth movement, and patient discomfort were measured and compared between the two groups. Results: The study found that in Group A, the treatment duration was reduced by 30% compared to Group B (P < 0.05). The rate of tooth movement in the MOPs group was 1.5 times higher than the conventional group (P < 0.01). Additionally, patient-reported discomfort levels were similar between the two groups. No adverse events related to MOPs were observed during the study. Conclusion: MOPs significantly accelerate orthodontic treatment, reducing treatment duration by 30% and increasing the rate of tooth movement by 1.5 times compared to conventional methods. Importantly, MOPs are well-tolerated by patients, making them a valuable option for expediting orthodontic treatment with minimal discomfort. This study highlights the potential benefits of integrating MOPs into orthodontic practice to improve treatment efficiency and patient satisfaction.