Three‐dimensional assessment of accelerating orthodontic tooth movement—micro‐osteoperforations vs piezocision: A randomized, parallel‐group and split‐mouth controlled clinical trial. (12th November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Alqadasi, Basema; Xia, Hou Yu; Alhammadi, Maged Sultan; Hasan, Hadeel; Aldhorae, Khalid; Halboub, Esam
• Is Part Of: Orthodontics and craniofacial research. Volume 24:Number 3(2021)
• Page Start: 335
• Page End: 343
• Publication Date: 2020-11-12
• Subjects: accelerated tooth movement -- cone beam computed tomography -- micro‐osteoperforations -- piezocision -- tooth movement; Skull -- Growth -- Periodicals; Facial bones -- Growth -- Periodicals; Orthodontics -- Periodicals; Orthodontics, Corrective -- Periodicals; Orthodontic appliances -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12437
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1601-6335

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare the effects of micro‐osteoperforations (MOPs) vs piezocision (Piezo) in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement in adults. Setting and Sample Population: In this randomized, single‐blinded, parallel‐group, split‐mouth clinical trial, 24 patients aged 15‐40 years were recruited. Subjects and Methods: Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: MOPs and Piezo groups. One side of the maxilla was allocated randomly for treatment with one of these techniques, and the other side was treated conventionally to act as a split‐mouth control. The rate of canine retraction was evaluated up to 3 months by three‐dimensional digital models using a conventional labial appliance. Root resorption and bone height were evaluated using cone beam computed tomography. Results: The MOPs and Piezo groups showed a significantly higher rate of tooth movement after 3 months on the experimental sides than the control sides. However, the net movements in the MOPs and Piezo groups did not reveal a higher rate of tooth movement. Similarly, the overall net movement was −0.32 ± 1.14 and ‐0.55 ± 0.89 mm for MOPs and Piezo, respectively ( P = .606). Regarding root resorption, the overall changes in intra‐ or intergroup comparisons were insignificant. Decreased canine palatal bone height was reported on the experimental side of the Piezo group ( P = .015) after 3 months, but the overall changes were insignificant. Conclusions: The effect of MOPs and Piezo techniques in accelerating the orthodontic canine retraction was comparable to each other, and to the conventional methods. Neither technique caused root resorption or increased vertical bone loss.