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

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.

Proposal regarding potential causes related to certain complications with dental implants and adjacent natural teeth: Physics applied to prosthodontics

PURPOSE

Complications can and do occur with implants and their restorations with causes having been proposed for some single implant complications but not for others.

METHODS

A review of pertinent literature was conducted. A PubMed search of vibration, movement, and dentistry had 175 citations, while stress waves, movement, and dentistry had zero citations as did stress waves, movement. This paper discusses the physics of vibration, elastic and inelastic collision, and stress waves as potentially causative factors related to clinical complications.

RESULTS

Multiple potential causes for interproximal contact loss have been presented, but it has not been fully understood. Likewise, theories have been suggested regarding the intrusion of natural teeth when they are connected to an implant as part of a fixed partial denture as well as intrusion when a tooth is located between adjacent implants, but the process of intrusion, and resultant extrusion, is not fully understood. A third complication with single implants and their crowns is abutment screw loosening with several of the clinical characteristics having been discussed but without determining the underlying process(es).

CONCLUSIONS

Interproximal contact loss, natural tooth intrusion, and abutment screw loosening are common complications that occur with implant retained restorations. Occlusion is a significant confounding variable. The hypothesis is that vibration, or possibly stress waves, generated from occlusal impact forces on implant crowns and transmitted to adjacent teeth, are the causative factors in these events. Since occlusion appears to play a role in these complications, it is recommended that occlusal contacts provide centralized stability on implant crowns and not be located on any inclined surfaces that transmit lateral forces that could be transmitted to an adjacent tooth and cause interproximal contact loss or intrusion. The intensity, form, and location of proximal contacts between a natural tooth located between adjacent single implant crowns seem to play a role in the intrusion of the natural tooth. Currently, there is a lack of information about the underlying mechanisms related to these occurrences and research is needed to define any confounding variables.

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.

Mechanical vibration as an adjunct to clear aligner treatment for accelerating tooth movement: A review

Many patients, particularly adults, may prefer clear aligner treatment due to its esthetics and ease of use. Some studies have shown that mechanical vibration can affect the rate of tooth movement and other aspects of orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this systematic review was to substantiate the effects of vibration as an adjunct to clear aligner treatment. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Scopus and also hand searching of reference lists was conducted for finding published studies up to March 2021. Two authors reviewed the titles and abstracts independently to select relevant studies and the full texts where there was some skepticism. Seven papers were included in this study following removing duplicates and irrelevant studies, four of which were randomized controlled trial and three were retrospective studies. In the majority of studies, High-Frequency Vibration (HFV) has shown to be effective in accelerating tooth movement and reducing the exchange interval of aligners. Little data have advocated that HFV can increase bone density, reduce pain or root resorption. It seems that HFV is more effective than low frequency vibration in patients treated with clear aligners. Based on a low level of certainty, HFV can increase the rate of tooth movement and decrease the exchange interval of clear aligners. Further investigation is necessary to clarify the effects of vibration on pain and discomfort, bone density, and root resorption.

Impact of intraoral non-pharmacological non-surgical adjunctive interventions on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption in humans: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The current systematic review aimed to assess the impact of intraoral non-surgical non-pharmacological adjunctive interventions on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR).

SEARCH METHODS

Search without restrictions was performed up to November 2020 in three electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective non-randomized studies. The ROB 2.0 tool was used to assess the quality of the included RCTs, and the ROBINS-I tool was applied to non-randomized clinical studies. The strength of evidence was ranked using GRADE.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixteen records were initially retrieved. A total of 10 studies, with 236 patients, were finally considered. These studies assessed the effects of mechanical vibration (low-frequency and high-frequency), low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and photobiomodulation (light-emitting devices (LED). While the low-frequency vibration and LED do not seem to affect OIIRR, OIIRR has been reported to be reduced in high-frequency vibration, and LIPUS-treated teeth (differences may not likely be considered clinically relevant). The potential positive effect of LLLT on OIIRR is still debatable. Overall, the existing evidence suggests that the amount of OIIRR observed while using these interventions with traditional orthodontic treatment was not more than that was observed without it.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a very low level of confidence, it seems that intraoral non-pharmacological non-surgical adjunctive interventions do not affect the amount of OIIRR either positively or negatively to a clinically relevant degree when compared to what is seen with conventional orthodontic treatment alone.

Efficacy and safety of different interventions to accelerate maxillary canine retraction following premolar extraction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Decreasing orthodontic treatment duration is at the forefront of innovation for clinical orthodontics. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine the relative efficacy and safety of treatments for accelerated orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) in patients undergoing extraction of maxillary first premolars followed by canine retraction in any orthodontic setting. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL and SCOPUS were searched (from inception to 20 April 2020). Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were meta-analysed to estimate the rate of tooth movement, 95% credible interval and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) in the first 3 months following the application of the adjunctive accelerative method. Eligible RCTs were assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE approach, obtained from CINeMA web application. Interventions were ranked for efficacy and reviewed for safety. Nineteen studies pertaining to eight interventions, with data from 415 patients were included. Quality of evidence was very low to moderate. Very low-to low-quality evidence suggests that corticotomy is an efficacious and safe adjunctive treatment to accelerate OTM in comparison with conventional treatment in the first 2 months of treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that piezocision and micro-osteoperforations (MOP) are efficacious and safe adjunctive treatments only in the first month of treatment. Frequent MOP in conjunction with low-level laser therapy appeared to be an efficacious and safe adjunctive treatment only in the first month following its initial application but not thereafter.

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.

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.