Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To measure and compare the canine retraction (CR) and molar mesial migration (MMM) rates using micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT).</p> Materials and methods <p>This randomized split-mouth study included 20&#xa0;patients. Following premolar extractions and levelling, the maxillary arch was divided into the right and left halves: group&#xa0;A received MOPs (performed once at T0), and group&#xa0;B underwent LLLT using a&#xa0;gallium–aluminum–arsenide diode laser (810 nm, 100 mW, continuous mode), applied biweekly for 3&#xa0;months around the canine region. Segmental CR was performed with NiTi coil springs (150 g) using mini-implant anchorage. Digital scans at T0 (baseline), T1 (45&#xa0;days), and T2 (90&#xa0;days) were analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) software. Retraction rate was calculated as distance moved per time (mm/day).</p> Results <p>The CR rate was significantly higher in the MOP group (0.03297 ± 0.0092 mm/day) than in the LLLT group (0.01865 ± 0.0070 mm/day, <i>p</i> = 0.000). The MOP group showed a&#xa0;decline from T1 (0–45&#xa0;days; 0.03297 ± 0.0092 mm/day) to T2 (45–90&#xa0;days; 0.02245 ± 0.0071 mm/day). MMM was higher in the LLLT group (0.00239 ± 0.0007 mm/day) than in the MOP group (0.00189 ± 0.0006 mm/day) but had a&#xa0;negligible impact on total space closure. The rate of retraction in the MOP group was 1.77 times faster, making it the primary contributor to space closure.</p> Conclusion <p>MOP significantly accelerated orthodontic tooth movement compared to LLLT across all time intervals with minimal MMM and few adverse effects on the molars.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative assessment of the rate of maxillary canine retraction using micro-osteoperforation and low-level laser therapy

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月19日

查看全文
  • Maris Urumeese,
  • Azhar Mohammed,
  • Ravi M.S

摘要

Objectives

To measure and compare the canine retraction (CR) and molar mesial migration (MMM) rates using micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT).

Materials and methods

This randomized split-mouth study included 20 patients. Following premolar extractions and levelling, the maxillary arch was divided into the right and left halves: group A received MOPs (performed once at T0), and group B underwent LLLT using a gallium–aluminum–arsenide diode laser (810 nm, 100 mW, continuous mode), applied biweekly for 3 months around the canine region. Segmental CR was performed with NiTi coil springs (150 g) using mini-implant anchorage. Digital scans at T0 (baseline), T1 (45 days), and T2 (90 days) were analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) software. Retraction rate was calculated as distance moved per time (mm/day).

Results

The CR rate was significantly higher in the MOP group (0.03297 ± 0.0092 mm/day) than in the LLLT group (0.01865 ± 0.0070 mm/day, p = 0.000). The MOP group showed a decline from T1 (0–45 days; 0.03297 ± 0.0092 mm/day) to T2 (45–90 days; 0.02245 ± 0.0071 mm/day). MMM was higher in the LLLT group (0.00239 ± 0.0007 mm/day) than in the MOP group (0.00189 ± 0.0006 mm/day) but had a negligible impact on total space closure. The rate of retraction in the MOP group was 1.77 times faster, making it the primary contributor to space closure.

Conclusion

MOP significantly accelerated orthodontic tooth movement compared to LLLT across all time intervals with minimal MMM and few adverse effects on the molars.