Skip to main content

Advertisement

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