Effects of supplemental vibrational force on space closure, treatment duration, and occlusal outcome: A multicenter randomized clinical trial

Effective mechanical vibration frequency in canine tooth movement acceleration: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of various supplementary vibrational frequencies with orthodontic force on the rate of canine movement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar, with the final search on February 17, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants undergoing orthodontic treatment with upper first premolar extraction, assessed the effect of different vibration frequencies on canine movement rate were included. Study quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2. A random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) for pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) and a frequentist-based network meta-analysis (NMA) estimated relative effects, with mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) calculated for all comparisons. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs examined the effects of five vibration frequencies. The RoB ranged from low to high. The PMA found vibrations significantly increased tooth movement (MD = 0.084 mm, 95% CI [0.004, 0.164]). Conversely, NMA showed no significant differences across all comparisons. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve ranked 125 Hz as the most effective, followed by 100, 60, 30, and 0 Hz. The confidence in evidence ranged from low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of supplementary vibration in conjunction with orthodontic force statistically effectively accelerates tooth movement, with higher frequencies showing a tendency to yield better acceleration results.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

While vibration therapy demonstrated a statistically significant effect on canine movement, the magnitude of this effect was not sufficient to be considered clinically significant for orthodontic treatment. Further research is required to optimize the effectiveness.

Adjunctive therapies in orthodontics: a scoping systematic review

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) induces physiological and sometimes pathological inflammation in periodontal tissues. This review evaluates the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), vibrational therapy, and probiotics as adjunctive treatments for managing inflammation, pain, and the duration of OTM.

METHODS

Medline via OVID, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were utilized to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1990 and November 2023. Studies were selected based on their evaluation of LLLT, vibrational therapy, and probiotics as adjuncts in fixed orthodontic treatment.

RESULTS

LLLT shows promise in enhancing orthodontic tooth movement by accelerating tooth movement and potentially reducing pain. However, disparate study outcomes indicate a need for standardized application protocols. The efficacy of vibrational therapy as an adjunct in OTM remains inconclusive. Some studies in this regard indicate a significant acceleration in OTM but most did not. Probiotic therapy shows potential to improve oral microbiota balance and inflammation but requires more rigorous studies to determine its efficacy and optimal administration methods.

CONCLUSION

Future research should focus on establishing standardized guidelines and protocols to achieve consistent and reliable outcomes across these adjunctive therapies.

Selective modulation of the bone remodeling regulatory system through orthodontic tooth movement-a review

Little is known about how tissues mediate the ability to selectively form or resorb bone, as required during orthodontic tooth movement (OTM), facial growth, continued tooth eruption and for healing after fractures, maxillofacial surgical repositioning or implant dentistry. OTM has the unique ability to selectively cause apposition, resorption or a combination of both at the alveolar periosteal surface and therefore, provides an optimal process to study the regulation of bone physiology at a tissue level. Our aim was to elucidate the mechanisms and signaling pathways of the bone remodeling regulatory system (BRRS) as well as to investigate its clinical applications in osteoporosis treatment, orthopedic surgery, fracture management and orthodontic treatment. OTM is restricted to a specific range in which the BRRS permits remodeling; however, surpassing this limit may lead to bone dehiscence. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, vibration or photobiomodulation with low-level laser therapy have the potential to modify BRRS with the aim of reducing bone dehiscence and apical root resorption or accelerating OTM. Unloading of bone and periodontal compression promotes resorption via receptor activator of nuclear factor κB-ligand, monocyte chemotactic protein-1, parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP), and suppression of anti-resorptive mediators. Furthermore, proinflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-1 (IL-1), IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-α, and prostaglandins exert a synergistic effect on bone resorption. While proinflammatory cytokines are associated with periodontal sequelae such as bone dehiscence and gingival recessions, they are not essential for OTM. Integrins mediate mechanotransduction by converting extracellular biomechanical signals into cellular responses leading to bone apposition. Active Wnt signaling allows β-catenin to translocate into the nucleus and to stimulate bone formation, consequently converging with integrin-mediated mechanotransductive signals. During OTM, periodontal fibroblasts secrete PTHrP, which inhibits sclerostin secretion in neighboring osteocytes via the PTH/PTHrP type 1 receptor interaction. The ensuing sclerostin-depleted region may enhance stem cell differentiation into osteoblasts and subperiosteal osteoid formation. OTM-mediated BRRS modulation suggests that administering sclerostin-inhibiting antibodies in combination with PTHrP may have a synergistic bone-inductive effect. This approach holds promise for enhancing osseous wound healing, treating osteoporosis, bone grafting and addressing orthodontic treatments that are linked to periodontal complications.

Periodontal response to nonsurgical accelerated orthodontic tooth movement

Tooth movement is a complex process involving the vascularization of the tissues, remodeling of the bone cells, and periodontal ligament fibroblasts under the hormonal and neuronal regulation mechanisms in response to mechanical force application. Therefore, it will inevitably impact periodontal tissues. Prolonged treatment can lead to adverse effects on teeth and periodontal tissues, prompting the development of various methods to reduce the length of orthodontic treatment. These methods are surgical or nonsurgical interventions applied simultaneously within the orthodontic treatment. The main target of nonsurgical approaches is modulating the response of the periodontal tissues to the orthodontic force. They stimulate osteoclasts and osteoclastic bone resorption in a controlled manner to facilitate tooth movement. Among various nonsurgical methods, the most promising clinical results have been achieved with photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy. Clinical data on electric/magnetic stimulation, pharmacologic administrations, and vibration forces indicate the need for further studies to improve their efficiency. This growing field will lead to a paradigm shift as we understand the biological response to these approaches and their adoption in clinical practice. This review will specifically focus on the impact of nonsurgical methods on periodontal tissues, providing a comprehensive understanding of this significant and understudied aspect of orthodontic care.

Occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Several appliances or treatment protocols are marketed to either patients or orthodontists as being associated with improved orthodontic outcomes. However, clinical decision-making should be based on robust scientific evidence and not marketing claims or anecdotal evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To identify appliances/protocols being associated with improved outcomes of fixed appliance treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

Unrestricted literature searches in seven databases/registers for human studies until March 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials on human patients of any age, sex, or ethnicity receiving comprehensive orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and assessing occlusal outcome with either the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) or the American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) index.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Duplicate/independent study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Random-effects meta-analyses of averages or mean differences with their 95% Confidence Intervals (CI), followed by meta-regression/subgroup/sensitivity analyses and assessment of the quality of clinical recommendations with the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Data from 20 small- to moderately-sized trials covering 1470 patients indicated that orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances is effective and results on average in a final PAR score of 6.0 points (95% CI 3.9-8.2 points), an absolute PAR reduction of 23.0 points (95% CI 15.6-30.4 points), a % PAR reduction of 82.6% (95% CI 70.8%-94.4%), and an absolute ABO-OGS score of 18.9 points (95% CI 11.7-26.2 points). However, very high between-study heterogeneity (I2 > 75%) was seen for both PAR and ABO-OGS. Extraction treatment was associated with significantly better occlusal outcome than non-extraction treatment with ABO-OGS (12.9 versus 16.6 points; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in occlusal outcome with (i) 0.018″-slot or 0.022″-slot brackets; (ii) customized or prefabricated brackets; (iii) anchorage reinforcement with temporary anchorage devices; (iv) use of vibrational adjuncts; and (v) aligners or fixed appliances (P > .05 in all instances), while small benefits were seen with indirectly bonded brackets.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable between-study heterogeneity exists in the reported occlusal outcome of fixed appliance treatment, and different appliances or adjuncts have little effect on this. Standardization and/or automatization of the scoring procedures for PAR and ABO-OGS might help to improve consistency and reliability of outcome measurement in orthodontic trials.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42024525088).

Effects of Vibration on Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement in Clinical and In Vivo Studies: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to assess the impact of high (>30 Hz) and low (≤30 Hz) frequency vibrations on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). Several articles were collected through a systematic search in the databases MEDLINE and SCOPUS, following PRISMA methodology and using a PICO question. Relevant information on selected articles was extracted, and the quality of each study was assessed by the quality assessment tools EPHPP, ROBINS-1 and STAIR. Out of 350 articles, 30 were chosen. Low-frequency vibrations did not seem to accelerate OTM with aligners or fixed appliances, despite some positive outcomes in certain studies. Conversely, high-frequency vibrations were linked to increased aligner change, tooth movement, and space closure with fixed appliances. In vivo studies reported favourable results with high-frequency vibrations (60 Hz to 120 Hz), which stimulate bone biomarkers, facilitating alveolar bone remodelling. The results suggest that high-frequency vibration effectively speeds up orthodontic tooth movement, showing promise in both in vivo and clinical studies. Larger-scale research is needed to strengthen its potential in orthodontics.

Effectiveness of low frequency vibration on the rate of canine retraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial

To investigate the effectiveness of AcceleDent Aura vibrating device on the rate of canine retraction. Thirty-two patients requiring extraction of upper first premolars and canine retraction were randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio into either no-appliance group or the AcceleDent Aura appliance group. Canine retraction was done applying 150gm of retraction force using NiTi coil springs on 16 × 22 stainless steel archwires. The duration of the study was 4 months. Models were collected and digitized directly after extraction of upper first premolars and at monthly intervals during canine retraction for recording the monthly as well as the total distance moved by the canine. Digitized models were superimposed on the initial model and data were statistically analyzed. Anchorage loss, rotation, tipping, torque and root condition were evaluated using cone beam computed tomography imaging. Pain was evaluated by visual analog scale. No patients were dropped-out during this study. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the total distance travelled by the canine (P = 0.436), as well as the rate of canine retraction per month (P = 0.17). Root condition was the same for the two groups. Regarding the pain level, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at day 0 (P = 0.721), after 24 h (P = 0.882), after 72 h (P = 0.378) and after 7 days (P = 0.964). AcceleDent Aura was not able to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. Pain level couldn't be reduced by vibrational force with an AcceleDent device during orthodontic treatment. Root condition was not affected by the vibrational forces.

Orthodontic retention: Rationale and periodontal implications

Post-treatment change in the form of true relapse and physiological and maturational effects is common following orthodontics. The unpredictable nature of these manifestations dictates a conservative, near-universal approach to retention. Both fixed and removable forms of retention are popular with the latter constrained by variable levels of adherence particularly in the medium- to long-term. Fixed retention may offer a more predictable means of preservation of orthodontic outcomes; however, this advantage is offset by the requirement for prolonged supervision and the potential for adverse changes including periodontal breakdown. Nevertheless, while examples of severe complications are common, a clear causal relationship between intact, passive retainers and periodontal issues does not appear to exist. Nevertheless, the importance of diligent maintenance and careful supervision during fixed retention, in particular, cannot be disregarded.

Vibrational Force on Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to systematically gather and analyze the current level of evidence for the effectiveness of the vibrational force in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). This systematic review was conducted using three electronic databases: Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar until March 2022. The search was done through the following journals: European Journal of Orthodontics, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, Progress in Orthodontics, and Seminars in Orthodontics. Human or animal studies that have evaluated the effect of vibrational force on the rate of OTM were selected. A meta-analysis was performed for the rate of canine movement per month. Database research, elimination of duplicate studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by authors independently and in duplication. A fixed and random-effect meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of vibrational forces. A total of 19 studies (6 animal and 13 human studies) that met the inclusion criteria were included. Meta-analysis was performed based on four human clinical trials. Three out of four studies showed no significant difference in the rate of canine movement between vibrational force and control groups. The limitation of this study was the small sample size and significant heterogeneity among the studies. Although vibrational forces have been shown to accelerate OTM in experimental studies, the results are inconsistent in clinical studies. The inability to apply desired peak load to the targeted teeth may be the main factor in inconsistent clinical outcomes.

Non-surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment

BACKGROUND

Deviation from a normal bite can be defined as malocclusion. Orthodontic treatment takes 20 months on average to correct malocclusion. Accelerating the rate of tooth movement may help to reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment and associated unwanted effects including orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR), demineralisation and reduced patient motivation and compliance. Several non-surgical adjuncts have been advocated with the aim of accelerating the rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM).         OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of non-surgical adjunctive interventions on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and the overall duration of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 6 September 2022 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people receiving orthodontic treatment using fixed or removable appliances along with non-surgical adjunctive interventions to accelerate tooth movement. We excluded split-mouth studies and studies that involved people who were treated with orthognathic surgery, or who had cleft lip or palate, or other craniofacial syndromes or deformities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors were responsible for study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction; they carried out these tasks independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussion amongst the review team to reach consensus.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies, none of which were rated as low risk of bias overall. We categorised the included studies as testing light vibrational forces or photobiomodulation, the latter including low level laser therapy and light emitting diode. The studies assessed non-surgical interventions added to fixed or removable orthodontic appliances compared to treatment without the adjunct. A total of 1027 participants (children and adults) were recruited with loss to follow-up ranging from 0% to 27% of the original samples.  Certainty of the evidence For all comparisons and outcomes presented below, the certainty of the evidence is low to very low. Light vibrational forces  Eleven studies assessed how applying light vibrational forces (LVF) affected orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). There was no evidence of a difference between the intervention and control groups for duration of orthodontic treatment (MD -0.61 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.44 to 1.22; 2 studies, 77 participants); total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment visits (MD -0.32 visits, 95% CI -1.69 to 1.05; 2 studies, 77 participants); orthodontic tooth movement during the early alignment stage (reduction of lower incisor irregularity (LII)) at 4-6 weeks (MD 0.12 mm, 95% CI -1.77 to 2.01; 3 studies, 144 participants), or 10-16 weeks (MD -0.18 mm, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.83; 4 studies, 175 participants); rate of canine distalisation (MD -0.01 mm/month, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; 2 studies, 40 participants); or rate of OTM during en masse space closure (MD 0.10 mm per month, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.29; 2 studies, 81 participants). No evidence of a difference was found between LVF and control groups in rate of OTM when using removable orthodontic aligners. Nor did the studies show evidence of a difference between groups for our secondary outcomes, including patient perception of pain, patient-reported need for analgesics at different stages of treatment and harms or side effects.  Photobiomodulation Ten studies assessed the effect of applying low level laser therapy (LLLT) on rate of OTM. We found that participants in the LLLT group had a statistically significantly shorter length of time for the teeth to align in the early stages of treatment (MD -50 days, 95% CI -58 to -42; 2 studies, 62 participants) and required fewer appointments (-2.3, 95% CI -2.5 to -2.0; 2 studies, 125 participants). There was no evidence of a difference between the LLLT and control groups in OTM when assessed as percentage reduction in LII in the first month of alignment (1.63%, 95% CI -2.60 to 5.86; 2 studies, 56 participants) or in the second month (percentage reduction MD 3.75%, 95% CI -1.74 to 9.24; 2 studies, 56 participants). However, LLLT resulted in an increase in OTM during the space closure stage in the maxillary arch (MD 0.18 mm/month, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; 1 study; 65 participants; very low level of certainty) and the mandibular arch (right side MD 0.16 mm/month, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.19; 1 study; 65 participants). In addition, LLLT resulted in an increased  rate of OTM during maxillary canine retraction (MD 0.01 mm/month, 95% CI 0 to 0.02; 1 study, 37 participants). These  findings were not clinically significant. The studies showed no evidence of a difference between groups for our secondary outcomes, including OIIRR, periodontal health and patient perception of pain at early stages of treatment. Two studies assessed the influence of applying light-emitting diode (LED) on OTM. Participants in the LED group required a significantly shorter time to align the mandibular arch compared to the control group (MD -24.50 days, 95% CI -42.45 to -6.55, 1 study, 34 participants). There is no evidence that LED application increased the rate of OTM during maxillary canine retraction (MD 0.01 mm/month, 95% CI 0 to 0.02; P = 0.28; 1 study, 39 participants ). In terms of secondary outcomes, one study assessed patient perception of pain and found no evidence of a difference between groups.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from randomised controlled trials concerning the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment is of low to very low certainty. It suggests that there is no additional benefit of light vibrational forces or photobiomodulation for reducing the duration of orthodontic treatment. Although there may be a limited benefit from photobiomodulation application for accelerating discrete treatment phases, these results have to be interpreted with caution due to their questionable clinical significance. Further well-designed, rigorous RCTs with longer follow-up periods spanning from start to completion of orthodontic treatment are required to determine whether non-surgical interventions may reduce the duration of orthodontic treatment by a clinically significant amount, with minimal adverse effects.

Vertical Vibration of Mouse Osteoblasts Promotes Cellular Differentiation and Cell Cycle Progression and Induces Aging In Vitro

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the effect of the vibration of osteoblasts on the cell cycle, cell differentiation, and aging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Primary maxilla osteoblasts harvested from eight-week-old mice were subjected to vibration at 3, 30, and 300 Hz once daily for 30 min; control group, 0 Hz. A cell proliferation assay and Cell-Clock Cell Cycle Assay were performed 24 h after vibration. Osteoblast differentiation assay, aging marker genes, SA-β-Gal activity, and telomere length (qPCR) were assayed two weeks post- vibration once every two days.

RESULTS

Cell proliferation increased significantly at 30 and 300 Hz rather than 0 Hz. Several cells were in the late G₂/M stage of the cell cycle at 30 Hz. The osteoblast differentiation assay was significantly higher at 30 Hz than at 0 Hz. Runx2 mRNA was downregulated at 30 Hz compared to that at 0 Hz, while osteopontin, osteocalcin, and sclerostin mRNA were upregulated. p53/p21, p16, and c-fos were activated at 30 Hz. SA-β-Gal activity increased significantly at 30 or 300 Hz. Telomere length was significantly lower at 30 or 300 Hz.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that providing optimal vibration to osteoblasts promotes cell cycle progression and differentiation and induces cell aging.

Effect of mini-implant facilitated micro-osteoperforations on the alignment of mandibular anterior crowding: A randomised controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of mini-implant assisted micro-osteoperforations (MI-MOPs) in the alignment of mandibular anterior teeth, and to explore the intervention's associated pain perception (PP) and root resorption (RR) in adults treated by fixed appliance.

DESIGN

Multicentre, two-arm and single-blinded randomised clinical trial.

SETTING

College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad.

PARTICIPANTS

Adolescents (mean age = 18.97 years) undergoing non-extraction orthodontic therapy for the management of mandibular anterior crowding.

METHODS

A total of 33 participants (mean age = 18.97 years) undergoing non-extraction orthodontic therapy for the management of moderate mandibular anterior crowding were allocated to the experimental (MI-MOPs, n = 17) or control groups (non-MI-MOPs, n = 16). A series of lower study models were obtained at week 4 (T1), week 8 (T2) and week 12 (T3) in the MI-MOPs group and continued to week 16 (T4) and week 20 (T5) in the non-MI-MOPs group, with all models analysed digitally. Periapical radiographs (PA) were taken before commencing treatment (T0) and T3. Participants were asked to complete a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) daily during the first week of treatment.

RESULTS

At T0, the mean Little irregularity index (LII) was 5.1 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.95-5.23) with no statistically significant difference between groups (P = 0.766). At T1, T2 and T3, t-test showed statistically significant differences in the LII (P < 0.05) in favour of the MI-MOPs group; mean differences (MD) were -1.16mm (95% CI = -1.36 to -0.96), -1.77 mm (95% CI = -1.93 to -1.59) and -1.58 mm (95% CI = -1.67 to -1.48), respectively. Mean treatment time from baseline to final alignment was 10.41 weeks (95% CI = 9.92-10.89) in the MI-MOPs group and 16.62 weeks (95% CI = 16.11-17.13) in the non-MI-MOPs groups, which was statistically significant (MD -6.21 mm, 95% CI = -6.88 to -5.53, P < 0.05). Conversely, Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant differences in terms of PP and RR between the groups (P > 0.05). The participants in the MI-MOPs group experienced a higher degree of RR (P < 0.05) secondary to intervention. No other significant adverse events were reported during the trial.

CONCLUSION

This trial found that combining MI-MOPs with non-extraction-based fixed orthodontic therapy in adults mildly shortens the duration of the alignment phase. RR should be monitored throughout the treatment when using MI-MOPs (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04778241).

Effect of vibration on orthodontic tooth movement in a double blind prospective randomized controlled trial

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of vibration on orthodontic tooth movement and safety assessment based on our previous basic research in animal experiments. A double-blind prospective randomized controlled trial using split-mouth design was conducted in patients with malocclusion. The left and right sides of maxillary arch were randomly assigned to vibration (TM + V) and non-vibration (TM) groups. After leveling, vibrations (5.2 ± 0.5 g-forces (gf), 102.2 ± 2.6 Hertz (Hz)) were supplementary applied to the canine retracted with 100 gf in TM + V group for 3 min at the monthly visit under double-blind fashion, and the canine on the other side without vibration was used as TM group. The amount of tooth movement was measured blindly using a constructed three-dimensional dentition model. The amount of canine movement per visit was 0.89 ± 0.55 mm in TM group (n = 23) and 1.21 ± 0.60 mm in TM + V group (n = 23), respectively. There was no significant difference of pain and discomfort, and root resorption between the two groups. This study indicates that static orthodontic force with supplementary vibration significantly accelerated tooth movement in canine retraction and reduced the number of visits without causing side effects.

The effect of 12 weeks of mechanical vibration on root resorption: a micro-CT study

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate the effect of mechanical vibration on root resorption with or without orthodontic force application.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty patients who required maxillary premolar extractions as part of orthodontic treatment were randomly divided into two groups of 10: no-force group and force group. Using a split-mouth procedure, each patient's maxillary first premolar teeth were randomly assigned as either vibration or control side for both groups. A buccally directed vibration of 50 Hz, with an Oral-B HummingBird device, was applied to the maxillary first premolar for 10 min/day for 12 weeks. After the force application period, the maxillary first premolars were extracted and scanned with micro-computed tomography. Fiji (ImageJ), performing slice-by-slice quantitative volumetric measurements, was used for resorption crater calculation. Total crater volumes were compared with the Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

The total crater volumes in the force and no-force groups were 0.476 mm3 and 0.017 mm3 on the vibration side and 0.462 mm3 and 0.031 mm3 on the control side, respectively. There was no statistical difference between the vibration and control sides (P > 0.05). There was more resorption by volume in the force group when compared to the no-force group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mechanical vibration did not have a beneficial effect on reducing root resorption; however, force application caused significant root resorption.

Peak loads on teeth from a generic mouthpiece of a vibration device for accelerating tooth movement

INTRODUCTION

The effect of vibrational force (VF) on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement depends on the ability to control the level of stimulation in terms of its peak load (PL) on the tooth. The objective of this study was to investigate the PL distribution on the teeth when a commercial VF device is used.

METHODS

Finite element models of a human dentition from cone-beam computed tomography images of an anonymous subject and a commonly used commercial VF device were created. The device consists of a mouthpiece and a VF source. The maxilla and mandible bites on the mouthpiece with the VF applied to it. Interface elements were used between the teeth and the mouthpiece, allowing relative motion at the interfaces. The finite element model was validated experimentally. Static load and VF with 2 frequencies were used, and the PL distributions were calculated. The effects of mouthpiece materials and orthodontic appliances on the PL distribution were also investigated.

RESULTS

The PL distribution of this kind of analyzed device is uneven under either static force or VF. Between the anterior and posterior segments, the anterior segment receives the most stimulations. The mouthpiece material affects the PL distribution. The appliance makes the PL more concentrated on the incisors. The VF frequencies tested have a negligible influence on both PL magnitude and distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

The device analyzed delivers different levels of stimulation to the teeth in both maxilla and mandible. Changing the material property of the mouthpiece alters the PL distribution.

Orthodontic treatment planning: can we plan for stability?

Careful orthodontic treatment planning should involve the delineation of clear treatment objectives within each dental arch. Treatment planning decisions are underpinned by aesthetic goals, dental health considerations and the prospect of stability, with these factors often competing. There is also a near-universal acceptance of the requirement for some form of retention. A novel hierarchy of orthodontic stability is proposed. As further evidence emerges and technical refinement continues, it is likely that this will undergo further adaptation. Ultimately, however, this knowledge will ensure that our understanding of the merits of orthodontic intervention, allied to the burden of retention, can be clearly presented to prospective orthodontic patients.

The impact of obesity on orthodontic treatment outcome in adolescents: a prospective clinical cohort study

INTRODUCTION

This prospective clinical cohort study investigated the potential influence of obesity on orthodontic treatment outcome.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of adolescent patients undergoing routine fixed appliance treatment were recruited into normal-weight or obese groups based upon body mass index (BMI) centile and followed up until the completion of treatment. Primary outcome was treatment duration, and secondary outcomes included treatment outcome (occlusal change measured using peer assessment rating [PAR]), appointment characteristics, and compliance measures.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients mean age 14.8 (1.6) years were included in the final analysis. The normal-weight group included 23 patients with mean BMI 19.4 (2.4) kg/m2 and the obese group 22 patients with mean BMI 30.5 (3.8) kg/m2. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics between groups, except for BMI and pre-treatment PAR. The normal-weight group had a mean pre-treatment PAR of 25.6 (8.3) and the obese 33.3 (11.8) giving the obese group a more severe pre-treatment malocclusion (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in treatment duration between groups (P = 0.36), but obese patients needed less time per each additional baseline PAR point compared to normal weight (P = 0.02). Obese patients also needed less appointments compared to normal-weight patients (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences between groups for appointment characteristics or compliance. Finally, obese patients were more likely to experience a great PAR reduction than normal-weight patients (relative risk = 2.6; 95% confidence interval = 1.2-4.2; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in treatment duration between obese and normal-weight patients. Obesity does not appear to be a risk factor for negative orthodontic treatment outcome with fixed appliances.

Performance comparison of vibration devices on orthodontic tooth movement - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To evaluate the efficiency of vibratory devices in altering rate of orthodontic tooth movement.

Methods

A literature search up to January 31, 2020 was conducted in three electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Science Direct, to identify studies on vibratory devices reporting any alteration in tooth movement as a primary outcome. Only articles published in English language were included. A meta-analysis was done to compare the amount of tooth movement (in mm) in patients treated with vibratory devices compared to control groups, to quantify weighted treatment effects.

Results

A total of two split mouth studies, six parallel arm randomized control trials (RCT) one split mouth RCT, and three regular RCTs were assessed qualitatively. Quantitative assessment was done for 8 randomized trials using a forest plot (310 patients). Pooled data showed increase in the amount of tooth movement by 0.34 ​mm (95% CI:0.25,0.42). There was a statistically significant difference noted for this result at p ​< ​0.00001.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests a moderate to high level of certainty in regard to included studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Vibratory devices when used in conjunction with fixed orthodontic appliances show significant increase in the rate of tooth movement. These devices can be used by clinicians to reduce treatment duration and patient discomfort.

PROSPERO registration

CRD42020169675.

Orthodontists' and patients' perceptions regarding techniques to reduce the orthodontic treatment duration

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' and orthodontists' perspectives on knowledge of techniques for reducing orthodontic treatment time and acceptance of these techniques.

METHODS

A total of 200 individuals were interviewed and equally divided into two groups: orthodontist group (62 female and 38 male; mean age, 38.07 years) and patient group (52 female and 48 male; mean age, 22.61 years; in the active stage of fixed orthodontic treatment). One questionnaire for each group was administered, including questions about the duration of orthodontic treatment and techniques used for treatment optimization, such as corticotomy, distraction osteogenesis, vibration, and laser therapy. The associations between variables were analyzed by the χ² test at a significance level of 5%.

RESULTS

Among orthodontists, 76% knew at least one technique to reduce the treatment duration, with corticotomy being the most frequently cited (66%); however, only 12% used one or more of these techniques. Laser therapy was the most frequently implemented technique (7%). Regarding the duration of orthodontic treatment, the mean time reported by orthodontists was 19 to 24 months, regardless of the technique or the experience of the orthodontist. Furthermore, 39% of patients expected their treatment to last for more than 24 months, with 50% accepting to undergo further procedures to reduce this duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are willing to undergo additional procedures to reduce the treatment duration and to bear additional costs. However, despite their knowledge, orthodontists do not apply or offer these techniques to the patients.

Comparative assessment of the rate of orthodontic tooth movement in adolescent patients undergoing treatment by first bicuspid extraction and en mass retraction, associated with low-frequency mechanical vibrations in passive self-ligating and conventional brackets: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low-frequency vibrations are one of the many non-surgical modalities aimed at increasing the rate of orthodontic tooth movement.

OBJECTIVE

The present trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of low-frequency vibrations in increasing the rate of orthodontic tooth movement in adolescent patients undergoing fixed mechanotherapy with passive self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Setting and sample population: department of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics in a nationally accredited dental college. Participants, study design and methods: 65 patients were randomly allocated to three groups. Two experimental groups consisted of passive self-ligating and conventionally ligated appliances received low-frequency vibrations. The control group did not receive any vibrations. Allocation ratio was 1:1:1.32. Eligibility criteria: adolescent patients with sound and healthy dentition, incisor irregularity<5mm.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

rate of orthodontic tooth movement in mm/month. Randomization and blinding: computer-generated random allocation sequencing was done and data assessor was blinded.

STATISTICS

the Q-Q plot and Shapiro-Wilks test judged the normality of the data. The parametric test included ANCOVA and post-hoc analysis.

RESULTS

No statistically significant enhancement of tooth movement was seen in the experimental groups, when comparison was done with the control group P>0.05. Comparison between the two experimental groups did not reveal any significant difference either.

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant increase of orthodontic tooth movement was seen with low-frequency vibrations and the mode of ligation did not have any effect in increasing the rate of tooth movement either.

Effectiveness of vibrational forces on orthodontic treatment : A randomized, controlled clinical trial

AIM

AcceleDent® Aura (OrthoAccel® Technologies, Bellaire, TX, USA) is a class II medical device with U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval that uses SoftPulse Technology™ to increase the speed of tooth movement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the application of vibrational forces on the rate of canine distalization.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients (10 boys and 10 girls) who had class II division 1 malocclusion or severe crowding and indicated first premolar extractions for treatment were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups: 8 in the control group and 12 in the study group. Three-dimensional digital models were taken just before canine distalization and after space closure using the 3Shape TRIOS® R700 (3Shape Inc., Copenhagen, Denmark) device. Linear measurements between molars and canines were evaluated. The results were assessed with SPSS 23.0 program (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

One subject was excluded from the study group due to insufficient oral hygiene and poor patient compliance. Tooth movement rates were 1.06 mm/month for mandibular and maxillary canine teeth in the control group. In the study group, tooth movement rates were 1.24 mm/month for maxillary canines and 1.09 mm/month for mandibular canines. These differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

AcceleDent® Aura is an easy-to-use device; however, in our study its application did not have any positive effects on canine retraction rates.

Biomarkers of orthodontic tooth movement with fixed appliances and vibration appliance therapy: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of supplemental vibratory force on biomarkers of bone remodelling during orthodontic tooth movement, the rate of mandibular anterior alignment (RMAA), and compliance with a vibration device.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

Forty patients between the ages 15-35 undergoing fixed appliance treatment that presented to a university orthodontic clinic were randomly allocated to supplemental use of an intraoral vibrational device (n = 20, AcceleDent®) or fixed appliance only (n = 20). Salivary multiplex assay was completed to analyse the concentration of selected biomarkers of bone remodelling before treatment (T0) and at three following time points (T1, T2, T3), 4-6 weeks apart. Irregularity of the mandibular anterior teeth and compliance was assessed at the same trial time points. Data were analysed blindly on an intention-to-treat basis with descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and linear mixed effects regression modelling.

RESULTS

No difference in the changes in salivary biomarkers of bone remodelling and RMAA between groups at any time point over the trial duration was observed. No correlation was found between changes in irregularity and biomarker level from baseline to another time point. Lastly, there was no association between RMAA and compliance with the AcceleDent® device.

CONCLUSIONS

Supplemental vibratory force during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances does not affect biomarkers of bone remodelling or the RMAA.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of the study was the small sample size and the large variability in the salivary biomarkers.

HARMS

No harms were observed during the duration of the trial.

PROTOCOL

The protocol was not published prior to trial commencement.

REGISTRATION

The study was registered in Clinical Trials.gov (NCT02119455) first posted on April 2014.

Does low-frequency vibration have an effect on aligner treatment? A single-centre, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low-frequency vibrations have been proposed as a means of accelerating tooth movement and reducing orthodontic treatment times.

OBJECTIVE

To determine any differences in the accuracy of dental movement in patients treated with a low-frequency vibration aligner protocol and/or by reducing the aligner replacement interval with respect to a conventional protocol.

DESIGN

This trial was designed as a single-centre, randomized controlled clinical trial.

METHODS

Participants: Patients (aged 27.1 ± 9.0 years) who required orthodontic treatment with aligners. Randomization: Patients were randomly allocated to three arms as determined by a computer-randomization scheme. Group A were assigned a conventional protocol (aligners replaced every 14 days); group B also used a low-frequency vibration device for 20 minutes per day; group C followed the same vibration protocol but replaced their aligners every 7 days. Blinding: The operator who performed the set-up and the one who analysed the data were blinded to the group of the patients. Outcome: Pre- and post-treatment digital models were analysed using VAM software to identify the accuracy/imprecision of dental movements. One-way analysis of variance (P < 0.05) and the Bonferroni post hoc test were used to identify any statistically significant differences between the three arms in terms of the accuracy of tooth movement versus the prescription.

RESULTS

Numbers analysed: A total of 45 patients (15 for group) were analysed (i.e. 2286 dental movements). Outcome: No statistically significant differences emerged between groups A and C in the upper arch, or among groups A, B, and C in the lower. Group B displayed significantly greater accuracy with respect to group A in upper incisor rotation (P = 0.016), and to group C in vestibulolingual (P = 0.007) and mesiodistal tipping (P = 0.029) of the upper canines, and vestibulolingual tipping of the upper molars (P = 0.0001). Harms: No adverse events or side-effects were registered.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all tooth and movement types of the 45 participants, the mean total imprecision was 2.1 ± 0.9 degrees, with respect to a mean prescription of 5.7 ± 2.2 degrees. There was no difference in accuracy between replacing the aligners accompanied by low-frequency vibration every 7 days and replacing them every 14 days without vibration. Moreover, low-frequency vibration seemed to improve the accuracy of a conventional protocol in terms of upper incisor rotation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The German Clinical Trials Register (DRK00015613).

The effectiveness of supplemental vibrational force on enhancing orthodontic treatment. A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The results from the literature regarding the influence of supplemental vibrational forces (SVFs) on orthodontic treatment are controversial. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate whether SVFs have positive effects, such as in accelerating tooth movement, alleviating pain, and preventing root resorption, in orthodontic patients.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches through five electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central) were complemented by hand searches up to January, 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials reporting on the effects of SVFs in orthodontic patients in English were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, data extraction, and a risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two reviewers. Study characteristics and outcomes were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A qualitative analysis of the effects of SVFs on orthodontic tooth movement, pain experience, and root resorption was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, including nine clinical trials, were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. There was no significant evidence to support the positive effects of SVFs in orthodontic patients, neither in accelerating tooth movement nor in alleviating pain experience. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, the quality of the evidence was very low for all the outcomes in the qualitative analysis.

LIMITATIONS

The results of this systematic review are based on a limited number of studies and the methodological heterogeneity and non-comparability of original outcomes made it difficult to conduct a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that SVFs have positive clinical advantages in the alignment of the anterior teeth. The potential positive effects of vibrational forces on space closure, pain experience, and root resorption in orthodontic patients are inconclusive with no sufficient information at present. High-quality clinical trials with larger sample sizes are needed to find more comprehensive evidence of the potential positive effects of vibrational forces.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018098788).

FUNDING

This study has not received any contributions from private or public funding agencies.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

Accelerated orthodontics: Getting ahead of ourselves?

There is disagreement as to what constitutes an acceptable duration for orthodontic treatment but seeming unanimity that acceleration is required. This contention has spawned a range of surgical and non-surgical adjuncts designed to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement, geared at reducing overall treatment times while maintaining optimal occlusal results. Largely, however, marketed non-surgical adjuncts and involved surgical procedures have shown equivocal effectiveness in reducing treatment times. Notwithstanding this, a range of key treatment decisions and approaches may have a more potent effect. While external solutions may offer alluring possibilities, perhaps, more mundane realities including refinement of orthodontic planning and decision-making with efficiency and process, as well as final outcome, in mind continue to offer the most accessible and influential means of improving orthodontic efficiency?

Effects of mechanical vibrations on maxillary canine retraction and perceived pain: a pilot, single-center, randomized-controlled clinical trial

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of mechanical vibratory stimulation on maxillary canine retraction and pain perception in adolescents undergoing full-fixed orthodontic treatment with extraction. A pilot randomized-controlled clinical trial was conducted in one university orthodontic clinic. Twenty-one healthy adolescents who underwent full-fixed orthodontic treatment with maxillary first-premolar extraction were recruited. Subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental group (N = 10) that used a mechanical vibration device (AcceleDent Aura, OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc.) or the control group (N = 11) that did not receive a vibration device. The evaluation timepoints were T₀ = day of initial canine retraction; T₁ = 4 weeks post-initiation; T₂ = 8 weeks post-initiation; and T₃ = 12 weeks post-initiation. Three-dimensional palatal landmark superimpositions were made to assess amount of tooth movement (mm) at each visit, monthly rate of tooth movement (mm), and perceived pain levels (VAS scores). The total amount of tooth movement was observed in the control versus experimental groups, respectively, as 1.12 ± 0.22 mm versus 1.39 ± 0.36 mm at 4 weeks (p = 0.058), 2.59 ± 0.37 mm versus 2.49 ± 0.76 mm at 8 weeks (p = 0.702), and 3.54 ± 0.23 mm versus 3.37 ± 1.37 mm at 12 weeks (p = 0.716). The rate of tooth movement was 1.21 ± 0.32 mm/month in the control and 1.12 ± 0.20 mm/month in the experimental groups, which was not statistically significant at any of the timepoints and neither was the level of pain. This study found no statistically significant differences in canine retraction and pain perception between the experimental and control groups. We propose that further optimization of accelerated tooth movement with mechanical vibration devices is necessary.

Interfacing the basic sciences and clinical orthodontics

Translational research aims to move knowledge generated from basic science and apply it to the clinical setting. As orthodontists, we continually strive for faster, safer and alternative clinical therapies in our goal to improve our patient outcomes and experiences. Our clinical questions may be answered by benchtop research and the ensuing translational research involving relevant animal models and robust clinical trials.

Effectiveness of using a Vibrating Device in Accelerating Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The aim of current systematic review was to evaluate the efficiency of the vibrating devices in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement.

Methods

A systemic unrestricted search was done in three electronic databases up to July 2018. A manual search was also performed. Eligibility criteria included Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi randomized clinical trials and prospective controlled trials (CCTs) comparing the rate of the tooth movement with and without vibrating devices. The study characteristics and data extraction of the vibrating device group and control group were performed by two reviewers independently.

Results

Seven articles were eligible to be included in the qualitative analysis. Three of them were included in meta analysis. One hundred and five patients received vibrating device to accelerate orthodontic treatment while forty-nine patients received shame device and seventy-eight patients were control group.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference between vibrating devices group and control group. There is no evidence that vibrating appliances are effective in acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement.

Effects of two frequencies of vibration on the maxillary canine distalization rate and RANKL and OPG secretion: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of 30 and 60 Hz vibratory stimulus on canine distalization and RANKL and OPG secretion.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Sixty patients requiring canine distalization at the Orthodontic Clinic, Prince of Songkla University.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to 30 Hz vibration (n = 20), 60 Hz vibration (n = 20), or the control group (n = 20). Modified electric toothbrushes were used to apply vibration to the randomly selected canine for 20 min/day by the investigator combined with 60 cN continuous distalization force from day 1 to day 7. RANKL and OPG were analysed before (T1) and 24 hours (T2), 48 hours (T3) and 7 days (T4) after initiation of distalization. From day 8, vibratory devices were used by the subjects at home. Rate of canine distalization (T1 to 3 months after initiation [T5]) was calculated. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for multiple comparisons (significance level, 0.05).

RESULTS

Canine distalization rate was not different between groups (median; 0.82, 0.87, and 0.83 mm/month for 30, 60 Hz, and control group, respectively; P > 0.05). No within- or between-group differences in RANKL and OPG were observed (P > 0.05), except RANKL on the compression side of the control group was significantly higher at T2, T3 and T4 than T1 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the clinic, 30 and 60 Hz vibratory stimulus have no additive effect on rate of canine distalization rate, RANKL and OPG secretion or RANKL/OPG ratio.

[Bone mechanobiology, an emerging field: a review]

INTRODUCTION

Mechanobiology, at the interface between biology and biophysics, studies the impact of mechanical forces on tissues, cells and biomolecules. The application of orthodontic forces, followed by induced tooth displacement, is a striking example of its clinical application.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to compile a review of the literature on the subject of mechanobiology; from its detection at bone level to the presentation of stimulated intracellular pathways.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The literature search was conducted on the Pubmed database in April 2018, with associations of the terms "mechanobiology", "orthodontics", "cell culture", "physiopathology".

RESULTS

Three major areas of research were selected: highlighting of the phenomenon and its application in the field of bone biology; the cellular effectors of mechanobiology and its clinical applications. The use of mechanobiology in dentofacial orthopedics opens up a new field of reflection for clinicians regarding future advances in orthodontics.

Mini-implant supported canine retraction with micro-osteoperforation: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate, using a split-mouth randomized clinical design, the effect of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) on mini-implant supported canine retraction using fixed appliances.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty subjects (seven males and 23 females) with a mean age of 22.2 (3.72) years were randomized into three canine retraction groups: Group 1 (MOP 4-weekly maxilla/8-weekly mandible; n = 10); Group 2 (MOP 8-weekly maxilla/12-weekly mandible; n = 10) and Group 3 (MOP 12-weekly maxilla/4-weekly mandible; n = 10) measured at 4-week intervals over 16 weeks. Subjects also completed pain (5-point Likert scale) and pain impact (Visual Analogue Scale) questionnaires. The primary outcome was the amount of canine retraction over 16 weeks at MOP (experimental) and non-MOP (control) sites.

RESULTS

Mean overall canine retraction was 4.16 (1.62) mm with MOP and 3.06 (1.64) mm without. After adjusting for differences between jaws, all MOP groups exhibited significantly higher canine distalization than the control group: 0.89 mm more (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 1.59 mm; P = .01) in the MOP-4 group, 1.08 mm more (95% CI = 0.49 to 1.68 mm; P = .001) in the MOP-8 group and 1.33 mm more (95% CI = 0.55 to 2.10 mm; P = .002) in the MOP-12 group. All subjects reported pain associated with MOP with 60% classifying it as moderate and 15% severe. The main impact of this reported pain was related to chewing and speech.

CONCLUSIONS

MOP can increase overall mini-implant supported canine retraction over a 16-week period of observation but this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant.