Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29658096›Full record

ArticleProgress in orthodontics2018

Effect of low level laser and low intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy on bone remodeling during orthodontic tooth movement in rats.

Mohammed Mahmood Jawad Alazzawi, Adam Husein, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Rozita Hassan, Rumaizi Shaari, Ahmad Azlina, M S Salzihan

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in orthodontics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Mohammed Mahmood Jawad AlazzawiOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester Medical Center, New York, USA.
Adam HuseinSchool of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health Campus, 16150, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia. adamkck@usm.my.
Mohammad Khursheed AlamOrthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, Al Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia. dralam@gmail.com.
Rozita HassanOrthodontic Unit, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health Campus, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia.
Rumaizi ShaariClinical sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia.
Ahmad AzlinaBiochemistry/Molecular biology, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health Campus, Kubang Kerian, Malaysia.
M S SalzihanDepartment of Pathology, School of Medical sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health Campus, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia.
Universiti Sains Malaysia · MYAl Jouf University · SAEastman Chemical Company (United States) · USUniversiti Malaysia Kelantan · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality bone regeneration, which leads to the improvement of bone remodeling, is essential for orthodontic treatment. In order to improve bone regeneration and increase the amount of tooth movement, different techniques have been implemented. The object of this study is to compare the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT), low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS), and their combination on bone remodeling during orthodontic tooth movement.

methodsEighty (80) male, 6-week-old Sprague Dawley rats were grouped in to four groups, the first group was irradiated with (940 nm) diode laser, second group with LIPUS, and third group with combination of both LLLT and LIPUS. A forth group used was a control group in an incomplete block split-mouth design. The LLLT and LIPUS were used to treat the area around the moving tooth once a day on days 0-7, then the experiment was ended in each experimental endpoint (1, 3, 7, 14, and 21 days). For amount of tooth movement, models were imaged and analyzed. Histological examination was performed after staining with (hematoxylin and eosin) and (alizarin red and Alcian Blue) stain. One step reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction RT-PCR was also performed to elucidate the gene expression of RANK, RANKL, OPG, and RUNX-2.

resultsThe amount of tooth movement, the histological bone remodeling, and the RT-PCR were significantly greater in the treatment groups than that in the control group. Among the treatment groups, the combination group was the highest and the LIPUS group was the lowest.

conclusionThese findings suggest that LLLT and LIPUS can enhance the velocity of tooth movement and improve the quality of bone remodeling during orthodontic tooth movement.

Indexed as

Bone RemodelingTooth Movement TechniquesUltrasonic WavesAnimalsLow-Level Light TherapyMaleMaxillaRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionStaining and LabelingBone remodelingLaserOrthodonticsTooth movementUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID29658096
PMCPMC5899968
OpenAlexW2804543318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.