Evaluation of the Difference in the Rate of Canine Retraction Assisted by Piezocision and Discission in Human Subjects: A Preliminary Parallel-Arm Prospective Clinical Study.
Srishti Syal, Poornima R Jnaneshwar, Krishnaraj Rajaram, Anupama Tadepalli, Ravi Kannan
{"title":"Evaluation of the Difference in the Rate of Canine Retraction Assisted by Piezocision and Discission in Human Subjects: A Preliminary Parallel-Arm Prospective Clinical Study.","authors":"Srishti Syal, Poornima R Jnaneshwar, Krishnaraj Rajaram, Anupama Tadepalli, Ravi Kannan","doi":"10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.70","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of the study was to evaluate the rate of orthodontic tooth movement assisted by piezocision and discission in extraction cases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve adults (20-35 years) requiring upper premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment were included in this preliminary parallel-arm clinical study. Participants (randomly allocated) in Groups A and B received piezocision and discision-assisted corticotomy cuts at the premolar extraction site, respectively, contralateral side served as the control. Canine retraction was started bilaterally using closed coil NiTi (Nickel titanium) springs. A schedule of fortnightly activation was followed for 3 months. Stage models were made monthly (M0, M1, M2, M3). Models were scanned using a 3-shape intraoral scanner, and the displacement of the canine was measured bilaterally in the stage models. A self-designed questionnaire was used to assess patients pain and satisfaction levels on a visual analogue scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rate of canine retraction at the piezocision site was twice that at the control site in group A (p=0.007). The rate of canine retraction at the dissection site was twice that at the control site in group B (p=0.012). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of retraction between the two surgical techniques. Pain and disturbance were noticed in the discission group at 50 and 67% respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Discision is comparable to piezocision for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. Although dissection can speed orthodontic treatment, it should be used with caution as it could pose technical and clinical difficulties, particularly in the posterior buccal region of the oral cavity.</p>","PeriodicalId":37013,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"36 3","pages":"173-179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bd/60/tjo-36-173.PMC10548061.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.70","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the rate of orthodontic tooth movement assisted by piezocision and discission in extraction cases.
Methods: Twelve adults (20-35 years) requiring upper premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment were included in this preliminary parallel-arm clinical study. Participants (randomly allocated) in Groups A and B received piezocision and discision-assisted corticotomy cuts at the premolar extraction site, respectively, contralateral side served as the control. Canine retraction was started bilaterally using closed coil NiTi (Nickel titanium) springs. A schedule of fortnightly activation was followed for 3 months. Stage models were made monthly (M0, M1, M2, M3). Models were scanned using a 3-shape intraoral scanner, and the displacement of the canine was measured bilaterally in the stage models. A self-designed questionnaire was used to assess patients pain and satisfaction levels on a visual analogue scale.
Results: The rate of canine retraction at the piezocision site was twice that at the control site in group A (p=0.007). The rate of canine retraction at the dissection site was twice that at the control site in group B (p=0.012). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of retraction between the two surgical techniques. Pain and disturbance were noticed in the discission group at 50 and 67% respectively.
Conclusion: Discision is comparable to piezocision for accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. Although dissection can speed orthodontic treatment, it should be used with caution as it could pose technical and clinical difficulties, particularly in the posterior buccal region of the oral cavity.