Effect of Mechanical Vibration on the Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement

Aiman Ali Al-Shawesh, A. Fouda
{"title":"Effect of Mechanical Vibration on the Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement","authors":"Aiman Ali Al-Shawesh, A. Fouda","doi":"10.21608/mjd.2021.200345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The purpose of this split-mouth trial was to evaluate the efficiency of mechanical vibration on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement. Subjects and methods: Thirteen patients (9 females, 4 males; mean age 16.55±2.54 years) who required both maxillary first premolar extraction and bilateral maxillary canine distalization were selected in this study. Each Patient was randomly assigned to either the experimental side that used a mechanical vibration device (a modified Gillette Fusion ProGlide ) or the control side that did not receive a vibration. Miniscrews were used in each side to support anchorage and closed-coil nickel-titanium springs with 150 g of force were used to retract the canines. Vibration of 133 Hz, was applied on the buccal surface of maxillary canine 10 mins twice daily for 12 week at the vibration side. The outcome was the rate of canine retraction measured using 3D digital models superimposed from the baseline (T0) to 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 12week (T1, T2 and T3). All date were analyzed and evaluated by Student t-test. Results: Eleven subjects remained in the trial at start of canine retraction. The mean rate of tooth movement (TM) was 0.956±0.10 mm/month for control sides versus 0.912±0.12mm/month for experimental side, which was not statistically significant difference at any of the timepoints. Regarding to (TM) mean values of control and vibration sides at T1 was (0.59±0.13 mm Vs 0.55±0.14 mm), at T2 (0.92±0.19 mm Vs 0.98±0.23 mm) and at T3 (1.32±0.16 mm versus 1.20±0.18 mm) respectively. Conclusion: The results of this study have shown that the use of mechanical vibration had no effect on the rate of tooth movement.","PeriodicalId":308616,"journal":{"name":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/mjd.2021.200345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this split-mouth trial was to evaluate the efficiency of mechanical vibration on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement. Subjects and methods: Thirteen patients (9 females, 4 males; mean age 16.55±2.54 years) who required both maxillary first premolar extraction and bilateral maxillary canine distalization were selected in this study. Each Patient was randomly assigned to either the experimental side that used a mechanical vibration device (a modified Gillette Fusion ProGlide ) or the control side that did not receive a vibration. Miniscrews were used in each side to support anchorage and closed-coil nickel-titanium springs with 150 g of force were used to retract the canines. Vibration of 133 Hz, was applied on the buccal surface of maxillary canine 10 mins twice daily for 12 week at the vibration side. The outcome was the rate of canine retraction measured using 3D digital models superimposed from the baseline (T0) to 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 12week (T1, T2 and T3). All date were analyzed and evaluated by Student t-test. Results: Eleven subjects remained in the trial at start of canine retraction. The mean rate of tooth movement (TM) was 0.956±0.10 mm/month for control sides versus 0.912±0.12mm/month for experimental side, which was not statistically significant difference at any of the timepoints. Regarding to (TM) mean values of control and vibration sides at T1 was (0.59±0.13 mm Vs 0.55±0.14 mm), at T2 (0.92±0.19 mm Vs 0.98±0.23 mm) and at T3 (1.32±0.16 mm versus 1.20±0.18 mm) respectively. Conclusion: The results of this study have shown that the use of mechanical vibration had no effect on the rate of tooth movement.
机械振动对正畸牙齿移动速率的影响
目的:评价机械振动对正畸牙齿移动速度的影响。对象和方法:13例患者(女性9例,男性4例;研究对象平均年龄(16.55±2.54岁)为上颌第一前磨牙拔除和双侧上颌犬齿远端拔除。每位患者被随机分配到使用机械振动装置(改良的吉列Fusion ProGlide)的实验侧或不接受振动的控制侧。在每一侧使用微型支架来支撑锚固,并使用150克力的镍钛闭合线圈弹簧来收回犬。振动133 Hz,在振动侧上颌犬齿颊面施加10分钟,每天2次,连续12周。结果是使用3D数字模型从基线(T0)叠加到4周,8周和12周(T1, T2和T3)测量犬的内缩回率。所有数据均采用学生t检验进行分析和评价。结果:11名受试者在拔牙开始时仍留在试验中。对照组的平均移牙率为0.956±0.10 mm/月,实验组的平均移牙率为0.912±0.12mm/月,两组比较差异均无统计学意义。控制侧和振动侧的TM均值分别为(0.59±0.13 mm Vs 0.55±0.14 mm), T2(0.92±0.19 mm Vs 0.98±0.23 mm)和T3(1.32±0.16 mm Vs 1.20±0.18 mm)。结论:本研究结果表明,机械振动的使用对牙齿的移动速度没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信