Health TrialsbyHealthPanel

Comparison of Rate of Tooth Movement Between MOPs vs MOPs & LLLT Combined

ConditionsOrthodontic Tooth MovementLow Level Laser TherapyCanine Retraction
Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18-30
SponsorRiphah International University

About this trial

Orthodontic treatment is often prolonged, requiring years to achieve desirable outcomes. The prolonged duration of treatment increases the risk of complications such as root resorption, periodontal damage, and patient non-compliance.

To address these concerns, various methods have been explored to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement, including pharmacological agents, mechanical vibration, corticotomies, and minimally invasive techniques like Micro-Osteoperforations (MOPs) and Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT). Micro-Osteoperforations (MOPs) have gained popularity as a minimally invasive technique that enhances bone remodeling by inducing a localized inflammatory response, thereby accelerating tooth movement.

Studies have shown that MOPs can effectively stimulate the expression of cytokines, increasing osteoclastic activity and facilitating rapid orthodontic tooth movement. However, the extent of its effectiveness varies among individuals, necessitating additional interventions to maximize efficiency. Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT), also known as photobiomodulation, is another promising adjunct in orthodontics. LLLT has been reported to enhance cellular activity, promote osteoblastic and osteoclastic function, and improve tissue healing, leading to accelerated tooth movement. Several studies suggest that LLLT alone can expedite orthodontic treatment, but its combination with MOPs has not been extensively explored.

This study aims to compare the rate of orthodontic tooth movement between MOPs alone and MOPs combined with LLLT. By evaluating these two techniques, this research seeks to determine whether LLLT enhances the effectiveness of MOPs in accelerating tooth movement. The findings of this study could provide valuable insights into optimizing orthodontic treatment duration while minimizing potential risks and discomfort for patients.

Eligibility criteria

This trial accepts healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

• Patients aged 12-30 years requiring fixed orthodontic treatment.

Patients with Class I or mild-to-moderate Class II malocclusion requiring canine retraction.

No history of previous orthodontic treatment.

Patients with indications for the extraction of the first premolars on both sides of the maxilla.

Disqualifiers

• Patients with systemic conditions affecting bone metabolism (e.g., osteoporosis, diabetes).

Smokers and individuals with poor oral hygiene.

Pregnant or lactating women.

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Micro-osteoperforation

    Other intervention

    MOPs will be performed using a sterile surgical instrument under local anesthesia, ensuring patient comfort during the procedure. Small perforations will be created in the alveolar bone adjacent to the tooth undergoing orthodontic movement along the long axis of the tooth with rule of 3, 3mm difference between three sites along the distal root of Canine. The intervention was repeated after 3 weeks interval for 9 weeks. GNI Mini Screws 1.8 x 8 mm

  • Low Level Laser Therapy and Micro-osteoperforations Combined

    Device

    Woodpecker LX16 Plus Diode Laser (976± 20nm) will be applied at 5W and Frequency of 10000 Hz for 8 seconds producing a total of 8J Energy. MOPs will be performed using a sterile surgical instrument under local anesthesia, ensuring patient comfort during the procedure. Small perforations will be created in the alveolar bone adjacent to the tooth undergoing orthodontic movement along the long axis of the tooth with rule of 3, 3mm difference between three sites along the distal root of Canine. The intervention was repeated after 3 weeks interval for 9 weeks. GNI Mini Screws 1.8 x 8 mm

Treatment groups

33 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Right side LLLT + MOP, Left side MOP onlyExperimental treatment 2 interventions
Group B: Right side MOP only, Left side LLLT + MOPExperimental treatment 2 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Rate of Tooth Movement

To compare the rate of orthodontic tooth movement while retraction of Maxillary Canine in extracted first premolar sight between MOPs alone and MOPs combined with LLLT. The mesurements were done on Intraoral scan of Maxilla, before the experiment and after 9 weeks, the MOPs and LLLT were repeated after every 3 weeks.

Time frame
3 weeks

Secondary outcomes

1

Root Resorption

: It is measured as the loss of root structure, quantified by the degree of reduction in root length or volume. It will be assessed using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) or periapical radiographs, where the degree of resorption is categorized into different levels based on observable changes in the root morphology: * None: No evidence of root resorption. * Mild: Minimal loss of root structure, less than 10% of the root length or volume affected. * Moderate: Moderate loss of root structure, between 10-30% of the root length or volume affected. * Severe: Significant loss of root structure, greater than 30% of the root length or volume affected.

Time frame
3 weeks
2

Pain in each visit

To measure pain in each visit, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is used.It is a simple and widely used scale that provides a continuous measure of intensity along a straight line, typically 10 cm long. One end of the line represents no pain (usually labeled as "0"), and the other end represents the worst possible pain (labeled as "10").

Time frame
3 weeks

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

Riphah International University

Lead sponsor

Source ClinicalTrials.gov

This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options: