Mandibular Second Molar Protraction Assisted by Piezocision

Jordan University of Science and Technology

Status: Completed

Conditions: Piezocision; Acceleration of Tooth Movement

Treatments: Procedure: Piezocision

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT03782766

416/2016

Details and patient eligibility

About

This study was conducted to compare the rate of second molar protraction, level of Interleukin1-β in gingival crevicular fluid, periodontal health (gingival index, plaque index, and periodontal pocket depth) and perception of pain in patients treated by molar protraction with piezocision vs control (no piezocision).

Full description

Twenty-six subjects (39 Molars) who presented with at least one extracted mandibular first molar were selected to participate in the study. The subjects were subdivided into one of 3 groups as follows: group 1 consisted of 18 molars (13 molars from patients with bilateral first molar extraction space and 5 molars from patients with unilateral first molar extraction space) where piezocision was performed immediately before molar protraction; group 2 consisted of 21 molars (13 from patients with bilateral first molar extraction space and 8 molars from patients with unilateral first molar extraction space) where molar protraction was performed with no piezocision; group 3 consisted of 21 molars (group 2 subjects where piezocision was carried on after 3 months of molar protraction with no piezocision. After reaching 0.019X0.025" SS arch wire, NiTi coil spring was used for space closure (protraction force was 150g) attached from the lower second molar hook to the head of the mini-screw. Piezocision was performed by making 2 vertical incisions mesial and distal to the extraction space. Piezotome was inserted in the incisions previously made and bone cuts were done with a length up to mucogingival line and depth of 3 mm.

Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) sample was obtained from the mesiogingival side of the lower second permanent molar with use of Periopaper. GCF sample was repeated 1 day, 1 week and 4 weeks after molar protraction with piezocision or with no piezocision. Pain was assessed using visual analog scale (VAS). Patients were requested to report the level of pain for 7 consecutive days.

Enrollment: 26 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 20 to 27 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

• age range from 20 to 27 years
• at least one extracted mandibular first molar (first molar extracted more than one year ago and residual extraction space more than 5 mm)
• Class 1 malocclusion where molar protraction is indicated
• all permanent teeth are present except for the extracted mandibular first molar/molars.

Exclusion Criteria:-

• Ggingival index score > 2
• Plaque index score > 2
• Probing depth > 4mm
• Previous orthodontic treatment
• Systemic disease and
• Smoker.

Trial design

26 participants in 3 patient groups

piezosurgery

Experimental group

Description:

group 1 consisted of 18 molars (13 molars from patients with bilateral first molar extraction space and 5 molars from patients with unilateral first molar extraction space) where piezocesion was performed immediately before molar protraction

Treatment:

Procedure: Piezocision

No piezocision

No Intervention group

Description:

group 2 consisted of 21 molars (13 from patients with bilateral first molar extraction space and 8 molars from patients with unilateral first molar extraction space) where molar protraction was performed with no piezocesion

Late piezocision

Other group

Description:

group 3 consisted of 21 molars (group 2 subjects where piezocession was carried on after 3 months of molar protraction with no piezocesion.

Treatment:

Procedure: Piezocision