ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Low-intensity electrical stimulation (LIES) is considered a relatively recent technology that has received little attention in orthodontics as a method of acceleration. This study aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures when LIES is used to accelerate the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 40 patients (8 males, 32 females; mean age 21.1 ± 2.3 years), with Class II division I malocclusion who required extraction of the first premolars to retract upper anterior teeth. They were randomly assigned to the LIES group (n = 20) and the conventional en-masse retraction group (CER; n = 20). Patient responses regarding pain, discomfort, burning sensation, swelling, chewing difficulty, speech difficulty, and painkillers' consumption were recorded at these nine assessment times: 24 h (T1), 3 days (T2), and 7 days (T3) after force application, then in the second month after 24 h (T4), 3 days (T5), and 7 days (T6) of force re-activation, and finally after 24 h (T7), 3 days (T8), and 7 days (T9) of force re-activation in the third month. RESULTS: The mean values of pain perception were smaller in the LIES group than those in the CER group at all assessment times with no statistically significant differences between the two groups except during the second and third months (T5, T6, T8, and T9; P < 0.005). However, discomfort mean values were greater in the LIES group with significant differences compared to CER group during the first week of the follow-up only (T1, T2, and T3; P < 0.005). Burning sensation levels were very mild in the LIES group, with significant differences between the two groups at T1 and T2 only (P < 0.001). Speech difficulty was significantly greater in the LIES group compared to CER group at all studied times (P < 0.001). High levels of satisfaction and acceptance were reported in both groups, without any significant difference. CONCLUSION: Both the LIES-based acceleration of en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth and the conventional retraction were accompanied by mild to moderate pain, discomfort, and chewing difficulty on the first day of retraction. These sensations gradually decreased and almost disappeared over a week after force application or re-activation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05920525. Registered 17 June 2023 - retrospectively registered, http://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05920525?term=NCT05920525&rank=1 .
Subject(s)
Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Tooth Movement Techniques , Humans , Female , Male , Tooth Movement Techniques/instrumentation , Tooth Movement Techniques/methods , Young Adult , Malocclusion, Angle Class II/therapy , Tooth Extraction , Bicuspid , Electric Stimulation/methods , Mastication/physiology , Incisor , Maxilla , Pain MeasurementABSTRACT
Malocclusion may affect interpersonal relationships, self-esteem (SE), and psychological well-being, weakening patients' psychological and social activities. Several studies investigated the effect of orthodontic treatment on these social and psychological aspects, such as SE. However, the direct relationship between SE and orthodontic treatment has not yet been confirmed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the existing evidence in the literature concerning the influences of orthodontic treatment on patients' SE systematically and critically. An electronic search in the following databases was done in September 2022: PubMed®, Web of Science™, Scopus®, Embase®, GoogleTM Scholar, Cochrane Library databases, Trip, and OpenGrey. Then, the reference list of each candidate study was checked for any potentially linked papers that the electronic search might not have turned up. Inclusion criteria were set according to the population/intervention/comparison/outcome/study design (PICOS) framework. For the data collection and analysis, two reviewers extracted data separately. The risk of bias 2 (RoB-2) and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) tools were used to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, respectively. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to evaluate the quality of the evidence for each finding. Sixteen studies (five RCTs, seven cohorts, and four cross-sectional) were included in this review. Unfortunately, the results could not be pooled into a meta-analysis. Only six studies have reported an increase in SE after orthodontic treatment (P<0.05 in these studies). No agreement between the included studies was observed regarding the influence of fixed orthodontic treatment, gender, or age on SE. The quality of evidence supporting these findings ranged from very low to low. There is low evidence indicating that fixed orthodontic treatment can improve patients' SE. In addition, unclear data are available about the influence of patients' gender and age on SE after orthodontic treatment. Therefore, high-quality RCTs are required to develop stronger evidence about this issue.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Shortening the duration of orthodontic treatment by speeding up the rate of tooth movement has become an essential goal for both orthodontists and patients. This preliminary report aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a new intraoral removable electrical device in accelerating the en-masse retraction of the upper anterior teeth using low-intensity direct electrical current. METHODS: This prospective preliminary interventional clinical study was conducted at the Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University, Syria, between March 2019 and February 2020. The sample consisted of six patients (four females and two males; mean age: 19.55 ± 0.89 years) whose initial diagnosis was class II division I malocclusion, and their treatment plan suggested the extraction of upper first premolars followed by en-masse retraction. The electrical stimulation was applied on the maxillary anterior region during the en-masse retraction phase using a specially fabricated removable device that was designed by two coauthors of this manuscript (RIS, MYH). Patients were asked to wear their own electrical devices inside their mouths for five hours daily. The primary outcomes were the en-masse retraction rate and duration. The secondary outcomes were safety and patient acceptance. RESULTS: The average total retraction rate during the treatment period was 0.97±0.06 mm/month. The total amount of retraction achieved during follow-up was 5.65 ± 0.85 mm, which was about 91.86% of the space resulting from the extraction of the upper first premolars. The mean treatment duration to complete the en-masse retraction was 5.66±0.81 months. No side effects of the electrical stimulation were found during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Low-intensity direct electrical current could be an effective method to accelerate orthodontic movement. The electrical accelerating device used in this study effectively increased the en-masse retraction rate of the upper anterior teeth without any side effects and with high patient acceptance.
ABSTRACT
The objective of this review was to critically and systematically appraise the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of high-energy laser therapy (HELT) with flapless corticotomy in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement and the associated untoward effects. We searched eight databases electronically in August 2021: PubMed®, Medline®, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Scopus®, Web of Science™, Trip, and PQDT OPEN from ProQuest. Another search was done in the reference lists of the included studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in which patients had received fixed orthodontic treatment combined with HELT-assisted corticotomy in comparison with traditional orthodontic treatment. Cochrane's risk of bias (RoB2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Five RCTs and one CCT were included in this review (155 patients). The HELT-based corticotomy around the upper canines led to a greater canine retraction at the first and second months (P < 0.001). In the third month, no statistically significant differences were noticed. In one RCT focusing on incisor intrusion, the irradiated upper incisors showed a greater intrusion speed than that of the control group (4.587 mm in 59 days vs. 3.78 mm in 95.8 days, respectively). No significant side effects associated with the application of HELT were reported. According to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach, the quality of evidence supporting these findings was low to moderate. Although the acceleration of tooth movement appeared to be significant at least in the first two months, there was low to moderate evidence concerning the efficacy of HELT-based flapless corticotomy in the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement. There is a need for more well-conducted high-quality RCTs.
