Cargando…

Effect of customized vibratory device on orthodontic tooth movement: A prospective randomized control trial

AIMS: The primary purpose of the present trial was to evaluate the effect of low-frequency (30Hz) vibrations on the rate of canine retraction. SETTING AND DESIGN: Single-center, split mouth prospective randomized controlled clinical trial METHODS AND MATERIAL: 100 screened subjects (aged18–25 years)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khera, Amit K., Raghav, Pradeep, Mehra, Varun, Wadhawan, Ashutosh, Gupta, Navna, Phull, Tarun S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9214440/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35754416
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_127_21
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: The primary purpose of the present trial was to evaluate the effect of low-frequency (30Hz) vibrations on the rate of canine retraction. SETTING AND DESIGN: Single-center, split mouth prospective randomized controlled clinical trial METHODS AND MATERIAL: 100 screened subjects (aged18–25 years) were selected; out of which 30 subjects having Class I bimaxillary protrusion or Class II div 1 malocclusion, requiring upper 1(st) premolar therapeutic extractions, were selected for the study. A split-mouth study design was prepared for the maxillary arch of each selected individual and was randomly allocated into vibration and nonvibration side (control) groups. A customized vibratory device was fabricated for each subject to deliver low-frequency vibrations (30 Hz). Scanned 3D models were prepared sequentially to assess the amount of tooth movement from baseline (T0),(T1), (T2), (T3), and (T4)-4(th) month of canine retraction. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Independent “t” test. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant differencein the rate of individual canine retraction among the experimental and control groups when the intergroup comparison was done using independent “t” test at T1-T0, (P = 0.954), T2-T1 (P = 0.244), T3-T2 (P = 0.357), and T4-T3 (P = 0.189). CONCLUSION: The low-frequency vibratory stimulation of 30 Hz using a customized vibratory device did not significantly accelerate the rate of orthodontic tooth movement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ctri.nic.in (CTRI/2019/05/019043).