Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129485›Full record

Trial reportJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2024

Low-level laser therapy, piezocision, or their combination vs. conventional treatment for orthodontic tooth movement : A hierarchical 6-arm split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Mehrnaz Moradinejad, Rayan Chaharmahali, Milad Shamohammadi, Maziar Mir, Vahid Rakhshan

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07626580 (Comparison of Rate of Tooth Movement Between Micro-osteoperforations Versus Micro-osteoperforations and Low Level Laser Therapy Combined), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

NCT07626580 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Rate of Tooth Movement Between Micro-osteoperforations Versus Micro-osteoperforations and Low Level Laser Therapy Combined

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2026 to 2026Enrolled33ConditionsOrthodontic Tooth Movement, Low Level Laser Therapy, Canine RetractionArmsMicro-osteoperforation, Low Level Laser Therapy and Micro-osteoperforations Combined
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Mehrnaz MoradinejadDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Rayan ChaharmahaliDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. charmahali.r@gmail.com.
Milad ShamohammadiDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Maziar MirDepartment of Conservative Dentistry (DGL), Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Vahid RakhshanDentist in private practice, Tehran, Iran.
Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences · IRBeckman Laser Institute and Medical Clinic · USShahed University · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe use non-invasive or minimally invasive methods to accelerate orthodontic tooth movements (OTM) is desirable. In this regard, low-level laser therapy (LLLT, photobiomodulation) and piezocision are suggested. However, because the efficacies of these methods remain controversial/inconclusive, we investigated and compared these two methods.

methodsSixty-four quadrants in 32 patients were randomized into three parallel intervention groups of 22, 22, and 20 (6 parallel arms, n = 64 treatment/control sides). Bilateral first premolars were extracted and canine retraction commenced. In each group, one side of the mouth was randomly selected as control, while the other side underwent each of three interventions: LLLT (940 nm, 8 J, 0.5 W, 16 s, 12 sites), piezocision, and "LLLT + piezocision". At the 3rd, 6th, and 9th follow-up weeks, canine retraction and anchorage loss were measured. Data were analyzed statistically (α = 0.05).

resultsAfter 9 weeks, LLLT, piezocision, and LLLT + piezocision improved canine retraction by 0.51, 1.14, and 1.93 mm, respectively. LLLT accelerated canine retraction (compared to control) by 1.6-, 1.4-, and 1.2-fold in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th week, respectively. These statistics were 2.1-, 1.7-, and 1.5-fold for piezocision and 2.7-, 2.1-, and 1.8-fold for LLLT + piezocision. Compared to controls, each intervention showed significant retraction acceleration (p < 0.05). The effect of LLLT + piezocision was greater than that of isolated piezocision (p < 0.05), which itself was greater than that for isolated LLLT (p < 0.05).

conclusionAll three methods accelerated OTM, with the combination of LLLT + piezocision producing the strongest and LLLT producing the weakest acceleration.

Indexed as

Low-Level Light TherapyBicuspidHumansMouthTooth Movement TechniquesAnchorage lossCanine retractionMalocclusionMinimally invasive surgical proceduresPhotobiomodulation

Identifiers

PMID36129485
OpenAlexW4296960875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.