Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Which method is more effective for accelerating canine distalization short term, low-level laser therapy or piezocision? A split-mouth study

Welche Methode ist für die kurzfristige Beschleunigung der Eckzahndistalisierung effektiver, die Low-Level-Lasertherapie oder die Piezozision? Eine Split-mouth-Studie

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study evaluated and compared the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and piezocision on the amount of orthodontic tooth movement.

Materials and methods

Forty maxillary canines from 20 patients (mean age, 16.35 ± 1.14 years) were evaluated in a split-mouth design study. Miniscrew-supported canine distalization was performed. Piezocision was applied in the right maxillary canine region, and the left maxillary canines were irradiated with a diode laser (940 nm, 5 J/cm2). LLLT was performed on day 0 and days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 after the start of canine distalization in the first 4‑week period. Data were evaluated at baseline (T0) and after 4 (T1), 8 (T2), and 12 (T3) weeks. The amount of canine movement was determined from three-dimensional models, and the angulation of canines and first molars was analyzed based on lateral cephalograms.

Results

Intragroup and intergroup comparisons of canine distalization were performed for four different time intervals (T0–T1, T1–T2, T2–T3, T0–T3). The canine tooth movement in the T0–T1 period was significantly greater in the LLLT group compared to the piezocision group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups for the T1–T2, T2–T3, and T0–T3 periods. The amount of canine distalization in the T0–T1 period was significantly greater than that in the T1–T2 and T2–T3 periods in both groups. Tooth movement during the T1–T2 period was higher than that in the T2–T3 period in the LLLT group. Cephalometric evaluation revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to canine and first molar angulation.

Conclusion

Although laser application seems more effective during the first 4‑week period, considering the 12-week period, the effects of LLLT and piezocision on orthodontic tooth movement during canine distalization were similar.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzungen

Diese Studie bewertete und verglich die Auswirkungen der Low-level-Lasertherapie (LLLT) und der Piezozision auf das Ausmaß der kieferorthopädischen Zahnbewegung.

Materialien und Methoden

Vierzig Oberkiefereckzähne von 20 Patienten (Durchschnittsalter 16,35 ± 1,14 Jahre) wurden in einer Split-Mouth-Design-Studie untersucht. Es erfolgte eine minischraubengestützte Distalisierung der Eckzähne. Im rechten oberen Eckzahnbereich wurde eine Piezozision durchgeführt, die linken oberen Eckzähne wurden mit einem Diodenlaser (940 nm, 5 J/cm2) bestrahlt. Die LLLT wurde am Tag 0 sowie an den Tagen 3, 7, 14, 21 und 28 nach Beginn der Eckzahndistalisierung in der ersten 4‑Wochen-Periode durchgeführt. Die Daten wurden zu Studienbeginn (T0) sowie nach 4 (T1), 8 (T2) und 12 (T3) Wochen ausgewertet. Das Ausmaß der Bewegung der Eckzähne wurde anhand von 3‑dimensionalen Modellen bestimmt, und die Angulation der Eckzähne und ersten Molaren wurde anhand von lateralen Kephalogrammen analysiert.

Ergebnisse

Intra- und Intergruppenvergleiche der Eckzahndistalisierung wurden für 4 verschiedene Zeitintervalle (T0-T1, T1-T2, T2-T3, T0-T3) durchgeführt. Die Bewegung der Eckzähne in der T0-T1-Periode war in der LLLT-Gruppe im Vergleich zur Piezozisionsgruppe signifikant größer. Es wurden keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen den Gruppen für die Perioden T1-T2, T2-T3 und T0-T3 beobachtet. Das Ausmaß der Eckzahndistalisierung in der T0-T1-Periode war in beiden Gruppen signifikant größer als in den T1-T2- und T2-T3-Perioden. Die Zahnbewegung in der T1-T2-Periode war in der LLLT-Gruppe höher als in der T2-T3-Periode. Die kephalometrische Auswertung ergab keinen statistisch signifikanten Unterschied zwischen den Gruppen in Bezug auf die Angulation der Eckzähne und des ersten Molaren.

Schlussfolgerung

Zwar scheint die Laseranwendung während der ersten 4‑Wochen-Periode effektiver zu sein, doch die Auswirkungen der LLLT und der Piezozision auf die kieferorthopädische Zahnbewegung während der Eckzahndistalisierung waren unter Berücksichtigung der 12-Wochen-Periode ähnlich.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1 Abb. 1
Fig. 2 Abb. 2
Fig. 3 Abb. 3
Fig. 4 Abb. 4
Fig. 5 Abb. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kurol J, Owman-Moll P, Lundgren D (1996) Time-related root resorption after application of acontrolled continuous orthodontic force. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110:303–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ristic M, Svabic MV, Sasic M, Zelic O (2007) Clinical and microbiological effects of fixed orthodontic appliances on periodontal tissues in adolescents. Orthod Craniofac Res 10:187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ge MK, He WL, Chen J, Wen C, Yin X, Hu ZA, Liu ZP, Zou SJ (2015) Efficacy of low-level laser therapy for accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci 30:1609–1618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Youssef M, Ashkar S, Hamade E, Gutknecht N, Lampert F, Mir M (2008) The effect of low-level laser therapy during orthodontic movement: a preliminary study. Lasers Med Sci 23:27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. AlSayed Hasan MMA, Sultan K, Hamadah O (2017) Low-level laser therapy effectiveness in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod 87:499–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Doshi-Mehta G, Bhad-Patil WA (2012) Efficacy of low-intensity laser therapy in reducing treatment time and orthodontic pain: a clinical investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 141:289–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Leethanakul C, Suamphan S, Jitpukdeebodintra S, Thongudomporn U, Charoemratrote C (2015) Vibratory stimulation increases interleukin‑1 beta secretion during orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod 86:74–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ekizer A, Türker G, Uysal T, Güray E, Taşdemir Z (2016) Light emitting diode mediated photobiomodulation therapy improves orthodontic tooth movement and miniscrew stability: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Lasers Surg Med 48:936–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alfawal AM, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Hamadah O, Brad B (2016) Effectiveness of minimally invasive surgical procedures in the acceleration of tooth movement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Orthod 17:33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gibreal O, Hajeer MY, Brad B (2018) Efficacy of piezocision-based flapless corticotomy in the orthodontic correction of severely crowded lower anterior teeth: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 41:188–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Frost H (1983) The regional acceleratory phenomenon: a review. Henry Ford Hosp Med J 31:3–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Keser EI, Dibart S (2013) Sequential piezocision: a novel approach to accelerated orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 144:879–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim SJ, Park YG, Kang SG (2009) Effects of corticision on paradental remodeling in orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod 79:284–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kişnişci RŞ, İşeri H, Tüz HH, Altuğ AT (2002) Dentoalveolar distraction osteogenesis for rapid orthodontic canine retraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 60:389–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sebaoun JD, Kantarci A, Turner JW, Carvalho RS, Van Dyke TE, Ferguson DJ (2008) Modeling of trabecular bone and lamina dura following selective alveolar decortication in rats. J Periodontol 79:1679–1688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dibart S, Yee C, Surmenian J, Sebaoun JD, Baloul S, Goguet-Surmenian E, Kantarci A (2014) Tissue response during piezocision-assisted tooth movement: a histological study in rats. Eur J Orthod 36:457–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aksakalli S, Calik B, Kara B, Ezirganli S (2015) Accelerated tooth movement with piezocision and its periodontal-transversal effects in patients with class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 86:59–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Alfawal AM, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Hamadah O, Brad B (2018) Evaluation of piezocision and laser-assisted flapless corticotomy in the acceleration of canine retraction: a randomized controlled trial. Head Face Med 14:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pretel H, Lizarelli RF, Ramalho LT (2007) Effect of low-level laser therapy on bone repair: histological study in rats. Lasers Surg Med 39:788–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. da Silva Sousa MV, Scanavini MA, Sannomiya EK, Velasco LG, Angelieri F (2011) Influence of low-level laser on the speed of orthodontic movement. Photomed Laser Surg 29:191–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kawasaki K, Shimizu N (2000) Effects of low-energy laser irradiation on bone remodeling during experimental tooth movement in rats. Lasers Surg Med 26:282–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Limpanichkul W, Godfrey K, Srisuk N, Rattanayatikul C (2006) Effects of low-level laser therapy on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement. Orthod Craniofac Res 9:38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. AlSayed Hasan MMA, Sultan K, Hamadah O (2017) Evaluating low-level laser therapy effect on reducing orthodontic pain using two laser energy values: a split-mouth randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 40:23–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim HK, Moon SC, Lee SJ, Park YS (2012) Three-dimensional biometric study of palatine rugae in children with a mixed-model analysis: a 9-year longitudinal study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 141:590–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dahlberg G (1940) Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Interscience Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dibart S, Surmenian J, Sebaoun JD, Montesani L (2010) Rapid treatment of class II malocclusion with piezocision: two case reports. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 30:487–493

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Abbas NH, Sabet NE, Hassan IT (2016) Evaluation of corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics and piezocision in rapid canine retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 149:473–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cruz DR, Kohara EK, Ribeiro MS, Wetter NU (2004) Effects of low-intensity laser therapy on the orthodontic movement velocity of human teeth: a preliminary study. Lasers Surg Med 35:117–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Genc G, Kocadereli I, Tasar F, Kilinc K, El S, Sarkarati B (2013) Effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on orthodontic tooth movement. Lasers Med Sci 28:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Usumez A, Cengiz B, Oztuzcu S, Demir T, Aras MH, Gutknecht N (2014) Effects of laser irradiation at different wavelengths (660, 810, 980, and 1,064 nm) on mucositis in an animal model of wound healing. Lasers Med Sci 29:1807–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S (2011) Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets: a randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 81:292–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Oz AA, Arici N, Arici S (2012) The clinical and laboratory effects of bracket type during canine distalization with sliding mechanics. Angle Orthod 82:326–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Burrow SJ (2010) Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod 80:626–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey

    Gökhan Türker &  İbrahim Yavuz

  2. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Genome and Stem Cell Center, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

    Zeynep Burçin Gönen

Authors
  1. Gökhan Türker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. İbrahim Yavuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zeynep Burçin Gönen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gökhan Türker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

G. Türker, İ. Yavuz and Z.B. Gönen declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

This study was approved by Erciyes University Clinical Trials Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Medicine (protocol number: 2014/251). Written informed consent of the patients were taken from the patients or their parents as a regular procedure.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Türker, G., Yavuz, İ. & Gönen, Z.B. Which method is more effective for accelerating canine distalization short term, low-level laser therapy or piezocision? A split-mouth study. J Orofac Orthop 82, 236–245 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00250-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00250-6

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation