The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Frequency of Micro-osteoperforation on Miniscrew- supported Canine Retraction: A Single-centered, Split-mouth Randomized Controlled Trial

Sudhakar Venkatachalapathy, RajVikram Natarajan, Uma Maheswari Ramachandran, Premkumar Rajakumar, Sumanth Rangarajan, Digvijay Patil, Vijayasri Manickavasagam

Keywords : Accelerated orthodontics, Canine retraction, Micro-osteoperforation, Rapid tooth movement

Citation Information : Venkatachalapathy S, Natarajan R, Ramachandran UM, Rajakumar P, Rangarajan S, Patil D, Manickavasagam V. Effect of Frequency of Micro-osteoperforation on Miniscrew- supported Canine Retraction: A Single-centered, Split-mouth Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (8):781-787.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3385

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-11-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The present study aimed at evaluating the increase in the rate of tooth movement by increasing the number and frequency of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs). Materials and methods: The study was a single-center, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial. A total of 20 patients were included in the study who had fully erupted maxillary canines with class I molar canine relationship and a bimaxillary protrusion that required the removal of both maxillary and mandibular first premolars. Out of 80 samples, the experimental and controlled groups were randomly assigned. The experimental group received five MOPs in the extracted site of the first premolar before retraction, at 28th day and 56th day. The control group received no MOPs. The rate of tooth movement was measured on 28th, 56th, and 84th day on both the experimental and control sides. Results: In maxillary dentition, the canine on the MOP side moved by 0.65 ± 0.21 mm, 0.74 ± 0.23 mm, and 0.87 ± 0.27 mm during 28th, 56th, and 84th day, respectively, whereas in control side the rate of tooth movement was 0.37 ± 0.09 mm, 0.43 ± 0.11 mm, and 0.47 ± 0.11 mm during 28th, 56th and 84th day, respectively, which was statistically significant (p-value = 0.000). In mandibular dentition, the canine on the MOP site has moved by 0.57 ± 0.12 mm, 0.68 ± 0.21 mm, and 0.67 ± 0.10 mm during 28th, 56th, and 84th day, respectively, whereas in control side the rate of the tooth movement was 0.34 ± 0.08 mm, 0.40 ± 0.15 mm, and 0.40 ± 0.13 mm during 28th, 56th, and 84th day, respectively, which was statistically significant. Conclusion: Micro-osteoperforations effectively increased the rate of tooth movement. Overall, MOPs increased the rate of canine retraction by 2-fold when compared with the control group. Clinical significance: Micro-osteoperforation is a proven methodology to increase the rate of tooth movement and decrease the treatment time. However, it is important to repeat the procedure during every activation to increase its effectiveness.


PDF Share
  1. Krishnan V, Davidovitch Z. Cellular, molecular, and tissue-level reactions to orthodontic force. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:469.e1-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.007.
  2. Tsichlaki A, Chin SY, Pandis N, et al. How long does treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances last? A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:308–318. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.020.
  3. Uribe F, Padala S, Allareddy V, et al. Patients’, parents’, and orthodontists’ perceptions of the need for and costs of additional procedures to reduce treatment time. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:S65–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.015.
  4. Kole H. Surgical operations of the alveolar ridge to correct occlusal abnormalities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1959;12:515–529. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(59)90177-x.
  5. Suya H. Corticotomy in orthodontics. In: Hosl E, Baldauf A, eds. Mechanical and biological basis in orthodontic therapy. Heidelberg, Germany: Huthig Buch Verlag; 1991. pp. 207–26.
  6. Wilcko MT, Wilcko WM, Pulver JJ, et al. Accelerated osteogenic orthodontics technique: a 1-stage surgically facilitated rapid orthodontic technique with alveolar augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:2149–2159. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.095.
  7. Kim SJ, Park YG, Kang SG. Effects of corticision on paradental remodeling in orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod 2009;79: 284–291. DOI: 10.2319/020308-60.1.
  8. Dibart S, Sebaoun JD, Surmenian J. Piezocision: a minimally invasive, periodontally accelerated orthodontic tooth movement procedure. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2009;30:342–4: 346, 348–350. PMID:19715011.
  9. Frost HM. The regional acceleratory phenomenon: a review. Henry Ford Hosp Med J 1983;31:3–9. PMID:6345475.
  10. Murphy NC. In vivo tissue engineering for orthodontists: a modest first step. In: Davidovitch Z, Mah J, Suthanarak S, editors. Biological mechanisms of tooth eruption, resorption, and movement. Los Angeles: University of Southern California; 2006, pp. 385–410.
  11. Alikhani M, Raptis M, Zoldan B, et al. Effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:639–648. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.06.017.
  12. Alkebsi A, Al-Maaitah E, Al-Shorman H, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of the effect of microosteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement during canine retraction in adults with Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153(6):771–785. DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo. 2017.11.026
  13. Chen CH, Chang CS, Hsieh CH, et al. The use of microimplants in orthodontic anchorage. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64(8):1209–1213. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2006.04.016.
  14. Dibart S, Keser E, Nelson D. Piezocision assisted orthodontics: past, present, and future. Semin Orthod 2015;21(3):170–175. DOI: 10.1053/J.SODO.2015.06.003.
  15. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod. 1983; 83(5):382–90.
  16. Alikhani M, Alansari S, Sangsuwon C, et al. Micro-osteoperforat ions: minimally invasive accelerated tooth movement. Semin Orthod 2015;21(3):162–169. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6.
  17. Haruyama N, Igarashi K, Saeki S, et al. Estrous-cycle-dependent variation. J Dent Res 2002;406–410. DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100610.
  18. Bartzela T, Türp JC, Motschall E, et al. Medication effects on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic literature review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2009;135(1):16–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.016.
  19. Hasler R, Schmid G, Ingervall B, Gebauer U. A clinical comparison of the rate of maxillary canine retraction into healed and recent extraction sites – A pilot study. Eur J Orthod 1997;19(6):711–719. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/19.6.711.
  20. Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped 2008;134(1):30–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.044.
  21. Schnelle MA, Beck FM, Jaynes RM, et al. A radiographic evaluation of the availability of bone for placement of miniscrews. Angle Orthod 2004;74(6):832–837. DOI:10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0832:AREOTA>2.0.CO;2.
  22. Kuroda S, Hichijo N, Sato M, et al. Long-term stability of maxillary group distalization with interradicular miniscrews in a patient with a Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped 2016;149(6):912–922. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.045.
  23. Shpack N, Davidovitch M, Sarne O, et al. Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics. Angle Orthod 2008;78(1):95–100. DOI: 10.2319/011707-24.1.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.