Effect of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic tooth movement during miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization in humans: a single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial.

To investigate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on orthodontic tooth movement during maxillary molar distalization over a 12-week observation period. Twenty patients were enrolled in this clinical trial. On the 0th, 3rd, 7th, 14th, 21st, 42nd, and 63rd days following the initial activation of the distalization appliance, laser therapy was applied in a total of 16 different points of the first and second molars for 10 s per point to the randomly determined molar region of the individuals in the intervention group. The amount of molar distalization was measured using digital scans of the three-dimensional (3D) digital models obtained during the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th weeks. The amount of tooth movement on the laser-applied side of subjects in the intervention group was significantly greater than those in the contralateral and control groups at all time intervals (p < 0.001). The amount of tooth movement between the contralateral side of the intervention group and the control group was determined to be statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) at all time intervals. The laser-treated molars of the subjects in the intervention group moved 1.22 times more than the molars in the contralateral side and in the control group in 12 weeks. The rate of tooth movement in the laser, contralateral, and control groups was 0.033, 0.027, and 0.027 mm/day, respectively. Although LLLT was found to be statistically significant in terms of accelerating tooth movement, the effect of LLLT is not considered to be clinically significant. This trial was retrospectively registered (September 22, 2022) at Clinical-Trials.gov (Ref no: NCT05550168).

Effects of micro-osteoperforations on intraoral miniscrew anchored maxillary molar distalization : A randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The aim was to study the effects of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) on miniscrew-supported maxillary molar distalization. METHODS: As part of a single center, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial, 20 eligible subjects were randomly recruited from patients who had applied to the orthodontics department of a university dental hospital. In the experimental group, subjects were randomized to receive MOPs to either the left or right maxillary molar region (n = 10). The control group (n = 10) and the contralateral sides of the experimental group (n = 10) did not receive any MOPs. In both groups, distalization of the maxillary molars was performed by miniscrew-supported distalization appliances. Using 3D models, maxillary molar distalization at 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks was measured. Pain, discomfort, eating difficulty, and speech problem levels were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS 0-10). Periodontal evaluations were performed. RESULTS: In all, 18 subjects completed the study. The mean amount of tooth movement was significantly greater on the MOP side compared to contralateral side of the experimental group at all time points. After 12 weeks, the maxillary molars on the MOP side moved 1.17-fold more than those on the contralateral side. No significant differences were found regarding amount of tooth movement between the control group and the MOP and contralateral sides of the experimental group. The rates of tooth movement in the MOP sides of the experimental group, contralateral sides of the experimental group, and the control group were 0.029, 0.025, and 0.028 mm/day, respectively. Pain VAS scores after intervention were significantly increased on the MOP side compared with the contralateral side of the experimental group but not at any other time point. No differences in periodontal scores between the groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A 1.17-fold increase in the rate of tooth movement in the MOP group compared with the contralateral side was recorded. However the accelerating effect of MOPs was lower than expected. The mean pain level was statistically greater in the MOP group compared to the contralateral side only on the first day of application.