Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Flapless Corticotomy with Low-Level Laser Therapy in En Masse Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth: A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.

(1) Background: This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcome measures when accelerating en masse retraction between the piezocision procedure and the subsequent application of low-level laser therapy (FC+LLLT), with the piezocision alone (FC), and in a control group. (2) Methods: A three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted involving 60 patients (41 females and 19 males) with Class II division I malocclusion. The en masse retraction was performed using NiTi closed coil springs attached to miniscrews. The LLLT was performed using an 808 nm Ga-Al-As diode laser. Patient responses regarding pain, discomfort, swelling, and chewing difficulties were reported at ten assessment points. (3) Results: The greatest pain levels were observed 24 h after the application of force during the first and third months of retraction. The mean pain, discomfort, swelling, and chewing difficulties were significantly smaller in the control group than in the FC and FC+LLLT groups. High satisfaction levels were reported in all three groups (p < 0.05). (4) Conclusions: The accelerated en masse retraction via piezocision, followed by a small course of LLLT, was accompanied by significantly fewer pain, discomfort, and chewing difficulties than the control group. LLLT is a valuable addition to piezocision, with an improved patient experience.

Pain, Discomfort, and Functional Impairments When Retracting Upper Anterior Teeth Using Two-Step Retraction With Transpalatal Arches Versus En-Masse Retraction With Mini-implants: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background This study aimed to evaluate the levels of pain and discomfort associated with employing mini-implants as a temporary skeletal anchorage device compared to the traditional transpalatal arches (TPAs) during upper anterior teeth retraction in patients with upper dentoalveolar protrusion and to determine the level of acceptance of both techniques among patients. Methodology The study sample consisted of 38 patients (29 women and nine men) with an average age of 21.7 years. The patients were randomly and equally distributed into two groups. In the first group: upper anterior teeth were en-masse retracted using mini-implants (the TAD group), whereas, in the second group, TPAs were used during the two-step retraction of upper anterior teeth (the TPA group). Standardized questionnaires were distributed to all patients after 24 hours of mini-implant application. The questionnaire asked the patients to rate their pain perception, swelling sensation, eating difficulties, talking impairments, and cleansing difficulties on a four-point Likert scale on the third-day, one-week, two-week, and one-month follow-ups after the anchorage application. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests were used to evaluate intragroup changes, whereas Mann-Whitney U tests were employed to examine intergroup differences. Results Patients in the TAD group had higher pain and swelling levels than those in the TPA group, and differences were statistically significant at the first three assessment time points. The differences between the two groups were statistically insignificant regarding eating and talking difficulties, whereas differences were statistically significant for brushing difficulties. These impairments decreased to almost normal levels after one month of treatment initiation. Conclusions TPAs, when used for anchorage in the two-step retraction technique, were less problematic compared to mini-implants with en-masse retraction, where the sensation of pain or swelling around the mini-implants did not last for more than a week. The difficulties of cleaning, chewing, and speaking in the presence of mini-implants were temporary and mostly disappeared within two weeks of mini-implant application.