Objective To assess the efficiency of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) and photobiomodulation (PBM) interventions in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement during clear aligner therapy (CAT). Materials and Methods This retrospective study was carried out on the records of 84 subjects who were treated using CAT. Twenty-eight patients were treated using CAT with a daily use of LIPUS for 20 minutes, 28 patients were treated using CAT with a daily use of PBM for 10 minutes, and 28 patients were treated using CAT alone. The total duration of treatment was recorded for all patients. One-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test were used to assess whether there was any significant difference in total treatment duration among the three groups (P < .05). Results The mean treatment durations in days were 719 ± 220, 533 ± 242, and 528 ± 323 for the control, LIPUS, and PBM groups, respectively. The LIPUS group showed a 26% reduction, on average, in treatment duration when compared with the control group, whereas the PBM group showed an average 26.6% reduction in the treatment duration when compared with the control group. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences among the groups (P = .011). Treatment durations were significantly reduced in the LIPUS and PBM groups as compared with the control (P = .027 and P = .023, respectively), with no statistically significant differences between the LIPUS and PBM groups (P = .998). Conclusions Daily use of LIPUS or PBM as adjunctive interventions during CAT could reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment.
Background The aim was to evaluate the efficiency of using temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in minimizing the anchorage loss and increasing the skeletal effects during correction of Class II malocclusion with Herbst appliance. Materials and methods Search without restrictions was performed up to January 2021 in three electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies. The included studies assessed the dental and skeletal changes in Class II malocclusion patients who were treated using Herbst appliance with or without TADs. The strength of evidence was ranked using GRADE. Results Fifty‐five records were initially retrieved. A total of 6 studies with 198 patients were finally considered. 4 studies were included in the meta‐analysis. The meta‐analysis showed that using TADs with acrylic splint Herbst appliance was effective in controlling the inclination of mandibular incisors by a mean difference of −5.49 degrees (95% C.I [−7.36, −3.63], P < .001) when compared to Herbst appliance alone. The results showed also that incorporating TADs with Herbst treatment resulted in greater mandibular skeletal effects including increasing mandibular bone base length by mean difference of 2.22 mm (95% C.I [0.82. 3.61], P = .002) and mandibular length by mean difference of 3.7 mm (95% C.I [1.55, 5.85], P < .001) when compared to Herbst appliance alone. Conclusions Based on a very low level of confidence, it seems that incorporating TADs during orthodontic treatment with Herbst appliance results in minimizing the anchorage loss and increasing the skeletal effects of Herbst appliance during correction of Class II malocclusion.
Background The current systematic review aimed to assess the impact of intraoral non‐surgical non‐pharmacological adjunctive interventions on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR). Search methods Search without restrictions was performed up to November 2020 in three electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective non‐randomized studies. The ROB 2.0 tool was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs, and the ROBINS‐I tool was applied to non‐randomized clinical studies. The strength of evidence was ranked using GRADE. Results Three hundred and sixteen records were initially retrieved. A total of 10 studies, with 236 patients, were finally considered. These studies assessed the effects of mechanical vibration (low‐frequency and high‐frequency), low‐intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) and photobiomodulation (light‐emitting devices (LED). While the low‐frequency vibration and LED do not seem to affect OIIRR, OIIRR has been reported to be reduced in high‐frequency vibration, and LIPUS‐treated teeth (differences may not likely be considered clinically relevant). The potential positive effect of LLLT on OIIRR is still debatable. Overall, the existing evidence suggests that the amount of OIIRR observed while using these interventions with traditional orthodontic treatment was not more than that was observed without it. Conclusions Based on a very low level of confidence, it seems that intraoral non‐pharmacological non‐surgical adjunctive interventions do not affect the amount of OIIRR either positively or negatively to a clinically relevant degree when compared to what is seen with conventional orthodontic treatment alone.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.