The Effects of Corticotomy and Piezocision in Orthodontic Canine Retraction: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: There have been many studies and experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of dental treatment. Maxillary canine extraction is such a dental treatment which can be performed through either alveolar corticotomy (AC) or piezocision (PZ). The current study aims to compare the effectiveness of these two types of dental procedures. It is based on a randomized clinical trial (RCT) through the split-mouth technique supported by a parallel group design. The participants in the trial were selected on the basis of a medical criterion. The clinical trial involved extraction of both the first maxillary premolar teeth through use of orthodontic instruments. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of alveolar corticotomy and piezocision corticotomy in acceleration of maxillary canine retraction and how it can be used for expression of multiple bone remodeling gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). As part of this study, a RCT was performed on the basis of split-mouth technique at the Department of Orthodontics of Pontifical Catholic University at Minas Gerais in Brazil. The sample size for the clinical trial consisted of people who required extraction of maxillary premolar teeth after canine extraction. After digital intraoral scans, the cumulative distal movement of canines was measured on the basis of superimposition of digital model and the results were considered as the primary outcome of the study. The GCF bone remodeling samples were considered as the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 50 patients, involving 22 males and 28 females were analyzed in this particular clinical trial. The age range that was considered for this clinical trial was 19–33 years. In case of understanding the distal movement between control and AC, no statistical significance was observed in Group1 (G1). Lower cumulative cervical and incisal measurements in case of PZ was lower than the measurement in the control state. In all the groups, the expression of the biomarkers had occurred in specific timepoints (P < 0.05) but no distinct pattern was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In order to accelerate the maxillary canine retraction, PZ and AC were ineffective. No distinct induction pattern of biomarker expression was noted as well.