Ng Doreen, Chan Ambrose K, Papadopoulou Alexandra K, Dalci Oyku, Petocz Peter, Darendeliler Mehmet Ali
Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney Dental Hospital, Sydney South West Area Health Service, Australia.
Brain and Mind Research Institute, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Eur J Orthod. 2018 May 25;40(3):317-325. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjx065.
The effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement has been extensively studied; however, there is limited knowledge on the use of LLLT on orthodontic root resorption.
To investigate the effect of LLLT on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and to compare the difference between pulsed and continuous LLLT on OIIRR.
Double-blind, single-centre 3-arm parallel split-mouth randomized controlled trial.
Twenty adolescent patients who required bilateral maxillary first premolar (MFP) orthodontic extractions were recruited from the Sydney Dental Hospital between October 2014 and December 2014.
All MFPs were tipped buccally for 28 days to induce OIIRR. The experimental premolars (n = 20) received LLLT and the control premolars (n = 20) received placebo-laser on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 21. Ten experimental premolars received LLLT via continuous delivery and 10 received pulsed delivery.
AlGaAs diode laser of 808 nm wavelength, 0.18 W power, 1.6 J per point, and duration of 9s for continuous mode and 4.5 s for pulsed mode.
The difference in root resorption crater volume between LLLT and placebo-laser and continuous or pulsed laser delivery after 28 days.
Randomization was computer-generated, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes.
The participants and operator were blinded.
Eighty-eight patients were screened and 20 patients were randomized. Forty premolars were analysed. LLLT resulted in 23 per cent less root resorption compared to the placebo (P = 0.026). Pulsed laser delivery resulted in 5 per cent less root resorption than continuous; however, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.823). No harm was observed.
Teeth treated with LLLT had less total root resorption than placebo-laser. Furthermore, there was minimal difference between pulsed or continuous delivery of LLLT.
Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000829415).
The protocol was not published before trial commencement.
低强度激光疗法（LLLT）对加速正畸牙齿移动的效果已得到广泛研究；然而，关于LLLT在正畸牙根吸收方面的应用知识有限。
研究LLLT对正畸诱导的炎性牙根吸收（OIIRR）的影响，并比较脉冲式和连续式LLLT对OIIRR的差异。
双盲、单中心三臂平行双侧随机对照试验。
2014年10月至2014年12月期间从悉尼牙科医院招募了20名需要双侧上颌第一前磨牙（MFP）正畸拔牙的青少年患者。
所有MFP均向颊侧倾斜28天以诱导OIIRR。在第0、1、2、3、7、14和21天，实验侧前磨牙（n = 20）接受LLLT，对照侧前磨牙（n = 20）接受安慰剂激光照射。10颗实验侧前磨牙接受连续照射的LLLT，10颗接受脉冲照射的LLLT。
波长808nm的AlGaAs二极管激光器，功率0.18W，每点能量1.6J，连续模式持续时间9s，脉冲模式持续时间4.5s。
28天后LLLT组与安慰剂激光组以及连续或脉冲激光照射组之间牙根吸收坑体积的差异。
随机分组由计算机生成，通过不透明的顺序编号密封信封进行分配隐藏。
参与者和操作者均为盲态。
共筛查88例患者，20例患者被随机分组。对40颗前磨牙进行了分析。与安慰剂相比，LLLT使牙根吸收减少了23%（P = 0.026）。脉冲激光照射导致的牙根吸收比连续照射少5%；然而，这在统计学上无显著差异（P = 0.823）。未观察到不良影响。
接受LLLT治疗的牙齿总的牙根吸收比接受安慰剂激光照射的牙齿少。此外，LLLT的脉冲照射和连续照射之间差异极小。
澳大利亚临床试验注册中心（ACTRN12616000829415）。
该方案在试验开始前未发表。
