World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation and Comparison of the Rate of Canine Retraction Using Two Accelerated Orthodontic Treatment Techniques: An In Vivo Study

Aishwarya Ramkumar, N Raghunath, BS Avinash

Keywords : Accelerated orthodontics, Canine retraction, Micro-osteoperforation, Piezocision, Regional acceleratory phenomenon

Citation Information : Ramkumar A, Raghunath N, Avinash B. Evaluation and Comparison of the Rate of Canine Retraction Using Two Accelerated Orthodontic Treatment Techniques: An In Vivo Study. World J Dent 2020; 11 (2):105-111.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1707

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-07-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: The study was aimed at evaluating and comparing the rate of canine retraction using piezocision (PZ) and micro-osteoperforation (MOP). Materials and methods: A split-mouth study design was used in which the canine of each side of the arch of each subject was divided into the PZ side and the MOP side. After first premolar extraction, PZ was performed on one side and MOP was performed on the contralateral side. Canine retraction on both sides was performed using NiTi closed coil springs. All the measurements were performed by a direct technique with the help of a digital Vernier caliper on stone casts obtained before canine retraction (T0) and after the completion (T1) of retraction. This data of the rate of individual canine retraction in the PZ and MOP groups obtained were subjected to the statistical analysis. Results: The mean rate of canine retraction was 1.64 ± 0.43 mm/month for the PZ group and 1.34 ± 0.51 mm/month for the MOP group. The paired difference in the rates of the canine retraction was 0.39 ± 0.26 mm/month, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Canine retraction on the PZ was seen to be 1.22 folds faster than the MOP side. Conclusion: Piezocision showed a significant increase in the rate of canine retraction whereas MOP showed a nominal increase in the rate of canine retraction. Piezocision increased the rate of canine retraction by 1.2 folds compared to MOP. Clinical significance: The need to reduce the duration of treatment and the associated factors is the need of the hour. There is therefore a need to find the best and most feasible approach to accelerate tooth movement with existing biomechanical systems.

  1. Frost HM. The regional acceleratory phenomenon: a review. Henry Ford Hosp Med J 1983;31(1):3–9.
  2. Dinesh MR, Gupta S, Yannawar V, et al. Periodontally accelerated osteogenic tooth movement in orthodontics: a review. Int J Adv Health Sci 2015;1(11):32–37.
  3. Cheung T, Park J, Lee D, et al. Ability of mini-implant-facilitated micro-osteoperforations to accelerate tooth movement in rats. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150(6):958–967. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.030.
  4. Ziegler P, Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95(2):99–106. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0.
  5. Aksakalli S, Calikb B, Karab B, et al. Accelerated tooth movement with piezocision and its periodontal-transversal effects in patients with class II malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2016;86(1):59–66. DOI: 10.2319/012215-49.1.
  6. Abbas NH, Sabet NE, Hassan IT. Evaluation of corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics and piezocision in rapid canine retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149(4):473–480. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.09.029.
  7. Yi J, Xiao J, Li Y, et al. Efficacy of piezocision on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2017;87(4):491–498. DOI: 10.2319/01191-751.1.
  8. Alfawal AM, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, et al. Evaluation of piezocision and laser-assisted flapless corticotomy in the acceleration of canine retraction: a randomized controlled trial. Head Face Med 2018;14(1):4. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-018-0161-9.
  9. Tunçer Nİ, Arman-Özçırpıcı A, Oduncuoğlu BF, et al. Efficiency of piezosurgery technique in miniscrew supported enmasse retraction: a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2017;39(6):586–594. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjx015.
  10. Feizbakhsh M, Zandian D, Heidarpour M, et al. The use of micro-osteoperforation concept for accelerating differential tooth movement. J World Feder Orthod 2018;7(2):56–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2018.04.002.
  11. Abdelhameed AN, Refai WM. Evaluation of the effect of combined low energy laser application and micro-osteoperforations versus the effect of application of each technique separately on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6(11):2180–2185. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.386.
  12. Attri S, Mittal R, Batra P, et al. Comparison of rate of tooth movement and pain perception during accelerated tooth movement associated with conventional fixed appliances with micro-osteoperforations–a randomised controlled trial. J Orthod 2018;45(4):225–233. DOI: 10.1080/14653125.2018.1528746.
  13. Aboalnaga AA, Fayed MM, El-Ashmawi NA, et al. Effect of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of canine retraction: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Prog Orthod 2019;20(1):21. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-019-0274-0.
  14. Alkebsi A, Al-Maaitah E, Al-Shorman H, et al. Three-dimensional assessment of the effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement during canine retraction in adults with class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153(6):771–785. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.11.026.
  15. Norman NH, Worthington H, Chadwick SM. Nickel titanium springs versus stainless steel springs: a randomized clinical trial of two methods of space closure. J Orthod 2016;43(3):176–185. DOI: 10.1080/14653125.2015.1122260.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.