Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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).
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| piezosurgery | Experimental | 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 |
|
| No piezocision | No Intervention | 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 3 consisted of 21 molars (group 2 subjects where piezocession was carried on after 3 months of molar protraction with no piezocesion. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Piezocision | Procedure | Piezocesion 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. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Rate of second molar protraction | measured in mm/month from onscreen dental cast | up to 3 months |
| Changes in the level of of Interleukin1-β | detected in Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) | Immediately before protraction/piezocision, 1 day, 1 week and 4 weeks after protraction/piezocision |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Anchorage loss | Distal movement of second premolar in mm per month | Each month up to 3 months |
| Pain Perception: Visual analogue scale (VAS) | Assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain. The participants filled out questionnaire to assess the pain intensity and interference after second molar protraction with or without piezocision on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 days of intervention. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:-
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Elham S A Alhaija | Prof.- Main thesis supervisor | Principal Investigator |
Not provided
Not provided
Three models:-
Not provided
Not provided
| Every day up to 7 days |