Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, New York, USA
2. Department of Dentistry, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, New York, USA
3. Department of Periodontology, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, New York, USA
Abstract
Summary
Background
The influence of low-level-laser therapy (LLLT) on the stability of orthodontic mini-screw implants (MSIs) has not been systematically reviewed.
Objectives
The aim was to assess the influence of LLLT on the stability of orthodontic MSIs.
Methods
An unrestricted search of indexed databases was performed.
Selection criteria
Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the influence of LLLT on orthodontic MSI stability.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently performed study retrieval and selection, and data extraction. The risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane RoB Tool for RCTs. Meta-analyses were performed separately for RCTs using periotest and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) to measure MSI stability; and a random effects model was applied. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the time-points of MSI stability evaluation. The quality of available evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
Results
Initially, 1332 articles were screened. Six RCTs with a split-mouth design were included. The periotest was used in 4 RCTs and 2 RCTs used RFA to measure MSI stability. All RCTs had a low RoB. Subgroup analyses based on periotest indicated that MSIs treated with LLLT had significantly higher stability than untreated MSIs at 21 and 30 days [weighted mean difference (MD) = −2.76, confidence interval (CI): [−4.17, −1.36], P-value = 0.0001) and at 60 days (weighted MD = −3.47, CI: [−4.58, −2.36], P < 0.00001); and the level of certainty was high. Subgroup analyses based on RFA showed higher stability of MSIs treated with than without LLLT at 56 and 60 days (standardized MD = 0.82, CI: [0.32, 1.32], P = 0.001), and at 70 and 90 days (standardized MD = 0.86, CI: [0.36, 1.36], P = 0.0007); and the level of certainty was moderate.
Limitations
Due to limited number of relevant studies, it was not possible to perform sensitivity analysis, subgroup analyses for patient and intervention-related characteristics, and reporting biases assessment.
Conclusions
The role of LLLT on the secondary stability of MSIs placed in patients undergoing OT remains debatable.
Clinical Trial Registration
PROSPERO (CRD42021230291).
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference34 articles.
1. Skeletal anchorage system for open-bite correction;Umemori;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics: Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics,,1999
2. The use of skeletal anchorage in open bite treatment: a cephalometric evaluation;Erverdi;The Angle Orthodontist,,2004
3. Intrusion of multiradicular teeth and related root resorption with mini-screw implant anchorage: a radiographic evaluation;Carrillo;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics: Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, Its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics,,2007
4. Relationship Between Primary/Mechanical and Secondary/Biological Implant Stability;Monje;The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants,,2019
5. A comparative histomorphological and micro computed tomography study of the primary stability and the osseointegration of The Sydney Mini Screw; a qualitative pilot animal study in New Zealand rabbits;Bakopoulou;European Journal of Orthodontics,,2019
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献