The Effect of Using Full Thickness Mucoperiosteal Flap versus Low Level Laser Application on Orthodontic Tooth Movement Acceleration

Abdarazik, Mohsena A.; Ibrahim, Samir A.; Hartsfield, James K.; AlAhmady, Hatem H.

doi:10.21608/adjg.2020.13312.1157

The Effect of Using Full Thickness Mucoperiosteal Flap versus Low Level Laser Application on Orthodontic Tooth Movement Acceleration

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Assistant Lecturer at Orthodontics Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

² Professor of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

³ E. Preston Hicks Endowed, Professor of Orthodontics and Oral Health Research, University of Kentucky- USA.

⁴ Professor and Head of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

10.21608/adjg.2020.13312.1157

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of using full thickness mucoperiosteal flap (FTMPF) elevation only versus low level laser therapy (LLLT) on acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement. Material and Methods: This study was a split mouth design study included 32 side according to sample size calculation. Those sides were divided into 2 groups. Group 1divided into (group 1a: 8 sides with FTMPF, group 1b:8 sides control). Group 2 (group 2 a: 8 sides with LLLT, group 2b: 8 sides control). Extraction of the first maxillary premolars followed by canine retraction in the extraction space with maximum anchorage were indicated. FTMPF was elevated from the mesial interdental papilla of maxillary canine to the mesial interdental papilla of second maxillary premolar. LLLT was applied at the 3,7,14,28.56 days of retraction. During retraction study model for all patients were taken at 2nd, 6th, 14th,16th weeks and at the end of retraction (I1,I2,I3,I4,I5 or overall interval). 3D laser scanning and digital superimposition was done to measure the rate of canine retraction and anchorage loss. Results: Statistical analysis showed a significant difference in the distance moved by maxillary canine and weekly rate of retraction between the FTMPF and its control in I1, I2 and I5 and in I2, I3 and I5 LLLT and its control. The total retraction time was significantly decreased in both FTMPF and LLLT in comparison to control. Conclusions: FTMPF could accelerate orthodontic tooth movement with 25%, while LLLT could achieve 20% decrease with no significant difference between both techniques.

Keywords

Main Subjects