Three-dimensional assessment of the effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement during canine retraction in adults with Class II malocclusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Alkebsi, Amal; Maaitah, Emad F. Al; Al-Shorman, Hisham; Alhaija, Elham S. Abu

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.11.026

Cited by 109 publications

(259 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

216

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with previous studies, our results showed that, except for the T3 time interval in the MOP1 group, there was a significant increase in the rate of canine retraction compared to the contralateral control side in both groups at all time intervals [2,[23][24][25]. However, another splitmouth clinical trial study found no significant effect of MOP on the rate of tooth movement over a 3-month period [26]. Compared to the present study, the main difference was in performing canine retraction using a 0.019 × 0.025-in.…”

Section: Main Findings In the Context Of The Existing Evidencesupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In line with previous studies, our results did not show any difference in pain perception among three study groups [2,25,26]. However, since the retraction force was applied immediately after the MOP procedure, it is highly probable that the patients could not differentiate the orthodontic pain from the MOP pain.…”

Section: Main Findings In the Context Of The Existing Evidencesupporting

confidence: 90%

“…However, complete bodily movement was not achieved and an insignificant degree of tipping was involved in both study groups. A previous study argued that the tipping movement reported in MOP studies resulted in a false-positive increase in the rate of tooth movement [26]. However, we found no significant difference in the amount of tipping between the groups, and thus it could not be responsible for the accelerated tooth movement.…”

Section: Main Findings In the Context Of The Existing Evidencecontrasting

confidence: 73%

“…However, human studies have not shown any such significant difference between men and women [31]. In previous human studies on MOPs, there were more female than male participants [2,25,26]. Whereas in the present study, we recruited an almost equal number of men and women to eliminate the potential effect of sex on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement.…”

Section: Main Findings In the Context Of The Existing Evidencementioning

confidence: 69%

“…In a splitmouth clinical study, over a period of 16 weeks, acceleration in canine retraction by 1.1 mm compared to the contralateral control side was reported [25]. In contrast, another well-designed clinical trial revealed that MOP was not effective in increasing the rate of orthodontic tooth movement over a 3-month study period [26]. A literature review also indicated that there is limited and contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of MOP in accelerating tooth movement in human [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effect of mini-screw-facilitated micro-osteoperforation on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: a single-center, split-mouth, randomized, controlled trial

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of MOP over a 3-month period and to determine the influence of the number of perforations on the rate of canine retraction. In addition, the amount of pain and discomfort caused by the MOP method was evaluated. Trial design: A single-center, split-mouth, triple-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted. Methods: The clinical trial was conducted from December 2018 to July 2019 in the Orthodontic Clinic, Shiraz Dental School. Twenty-eight patients (range from16.3 to 35.2 years) who need fixed orthodontic treatment were recruited and randomly assigned to MOP1 and MOP2 groups. In each patient one side of the mouth worked as a control side which received no MOPs. Four months after first premolars extraction, patients in MOP1 group received 3 MOPs on the buccal surface of alveolar bone in the experimental side to accelerate canine retraction whereas patients in MOP2 group received 3 buccal MOPs and 3 palatal MOPs in the experimental side. The amount of canine retraction was measured every 28 days at three intervals on both sides of the mouth. Pain perception was also measured on the day of MOP procedure and subsequently at 24 h. Randomization was performed using online software RANDOM.ORG; the recruited patients were divided into two parallel groups with a 1:1 allocation ratio then the side of MOPs intervention in each subject was randomly determined with coin tossing. Triple blinding design was employed. Results: The result of the intra-examiner reliability using ICC was 0.97 (P < 0.001), indicating excellent repeatability and reliability of the measurements. The baseline characteristics between the groups were similar (P > 0.05). There was a significant difference in the rate of canine retraction between the MOP groups and the contralateral control sides, as well as between the MOP1 and MOP2 groups (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The MOP procedure was effective in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement, although the amount of acceleration was not clinically significant in the case of canine retraction. An increase in the number of MOPs resulted in a significant acceleration of the canine retraction. Trial registration: The trial was registered 30 November 2018 at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20181121 041713N1).

show abstract