
Compare the efficacy of the micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and corticotomy techniques in terms of maxillary canine retraction.Thirteen patients (5 females, 8 males; mean age, 18.07 ± 6.74 years) with healthy permanent dentition and requiring the extraction of maxillary first premolars were included in a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Those subjects with previous orthodontic or endodontic treatment of the canines were excluded. At least 3 months post-extraction, MOPs and corticotomies were performed distal to the canines. Mini-screws with closed-coil springs (150 g) were used for the canine retraction. Dental casts were made at baseline (T0) and 3 months post-intervention (T1). Trained and calibrated examiners measured the distances from the canines to the second premolars on both sides. A signed-rank sum test was used to compare the amount of canine retraction achieved in 3 months (T0-T1) on the 2 sides.Retraction (mm) at the incisal level was similar in the corticotomy (3.34 ± 1.01) and MOP patients (2.74 ± 1.10) (P = 0.11); furthermore, there were no differences in the degree of medial retraction between the corticotomy (2.56 ± 0.67) and MOP (2.27 ± 0.82) (P = 0.31) procedures. No adverse events were observed.There were not any clinically or statistically significant differences in retraction between the interventions. At 3 months, a MOP is as effective as a corticotomy in accelerating the rate of tooth movement.
Male, Adult, Young Adult, Mouth, Cuspid, Adolescent, Tooth Movement Techniques, Humans, Female, Bicuspid, Child, Dental Care
Male, Adult, Young Adult, Mouth, Cuspid, Adolescent, Tooth Movement Techniques, Humans, Female, Bicuspid, Child, Dental Care
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
