Effect of Mechanical Vibration on the Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement | ||
| Mansoura Journal of Dentistry | ||
| Article 7, Volume 8, Issue 3, September 2021, Pages 40-42 PDF (468.93 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjd.2021.200345 | ||
| 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. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 184 PDF Download: 195 |
||
