Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies in the systematic review

From: Effectiveness of minimally invasive surgical procedures in the acceleration of tooth movement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study/setting

Methods

Participants

Interventions

Outcomes

Study design

Treatment comparison

Patients (M/F)

Mean age (years)

Malocclusion

Type and site of intervention/technical aspects of interventions

Follow-up time

Primary and secondary outcomes

Alikhani 2013 [17]

New York

USA

RCT COMP

MOP + OT vs. OT

Patients (M/F): 20 (8/12)

Control: 10, Exp: 10

Mean age:

Control: 24, 7 Exp:26, 8

Malocclusion: class II div.1

- MOPs (upper canines)

- No flap elevation, three small MOPs were done in the extraction area at equivalent spaces between the canine and the second premolar after 6 months from maxillary first premolar extraction. Each perforation was 1.5 mm wide and 2 to 3 mm deep.

Surgical instrument: a disposable handled devicea orthodontic activation: immediately following the intervention

4 weeks

Primary outcome: RTM (mm/month)

Secondary outcomes:

-Pain and discomfort

-Inflammatory markers (cytokines levels)

Mehr 2013 [38]

Connecticut USA

RCT (PG)

Piezocision + OT vs. OT

Patients (M/F): 13 (5/8)

Control: 6 Exp: 7

Mean age (years):

Control: 26, 35 Exp: 29, 12

Malocclusion: mandibular anterior crowding (irregularity index greater than 5)

- Piezocision (mandibular incisors)

- No flap elevation, three vertical incisions, (4 mm length and 1 mm depth of cortical bone), interproximally between mandibular canines and lateral incisors, and central incisors. Surgical instrument: piezosurgery knife (BS1) orthodontic activation: immediately following the intervention

Until complete decrowding

Primary outcome:

-RTM (mm/month)

-TTM (days)

Secondary outcomes: pain

Leethanakul 2014 [39]

Thailand

RCT (SP)

Interseptal bone reduction + OT vs.

OT

Patients (M/F): 18 (0/18(

Control: 18, Exp: 18

Mean age (years): 21.9 ± 4.7

Malocclusion: patients who need to extract maxillary 1st premolars and maxillary canine retraction

- Interseptal bone reduction (upper canines)

- No flap elevation, reduction (1.0 to 1.5 mm) of the interseptal bone distal to the canine inside the extraction socket of the first premolar. Surgical instrument: bur orthodontic activation: immediately following the intervention

Up to 3 months after intervention

Primary outcome:

-RTM (mm/month)

-CTM (mm)

Secondary outcomes:

Canine tipping

Canine rotation

Aksakalli 2015 [40]

Istanbul Turkey

RCT (SP)

Piezocision + OT vs. OT

Patients (M/F): 10 (4/6)

Control: 10, Exp: 10

Mean age (years): 16.3 ± 2.4 (adult only)

Malocclusion: half or more unit class II malocclusion

- Piezocision (upper canines)

- No flap elevation, two vertical interproximal incisions were performed mesial and distal of the maxillary canines, 5 mm apical to interdental papilla, incision lengths were approximately 10 mm apically, 3 mm deep in cortical alveolar. Surgical instrument: piezosurgery knife (BS1) orthodontic activation: immediately following the intervention.

Up to ideal class I canine relation-ship

Primary outcome:

-CTM (mm)

-TTM (months)

Secondary outcomes:

- Molar anchorage loss

- Transversal changes

- Mobility scores

- Gingival indices

  1. RCT randomized clinical trial, OT orthodontic therapy, PG parallel-group design, SP split-mouth design, COMP compound design (parallel-group design and one arm is a split-mouth design), MOPs micro-osteoperforations, Exp experimental, NR not reported, M male, F female, U3 upper canines, SS stainless steel, RTM rate of tooth movement, TTM time of tooth movement, CTM cumulative tooth movement
  2. aPROPEL orthodontics, Ossining, NY