Effect of low-level laser therapy on en masse retraction in females with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion : A single-center randomized clinical trial.

backgroundAcceleration of tooth movement has gained remarkable attention during the last decade. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on en masse retraction of upper anterior teeth in adult women with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this two-arm parallel trial, 36 women with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion were randomly divided into two equal groups. Eligibility criteria included class I Angle molar relationship, good general and oral health as well as no systemic disease or syndrome. Four temporary anchorage devices (TADs) were used in the upper and lower arches for anchorage purposes. A 0.019×0.025-inch stainless steel wire with crimped hooks just distal to the maxillary canines was inserted. Nickle titanium (NiTi) closed coil springs (200 g/side) were employed for en masse retraction following extraction of the first premolars. In the laser group (LG), retraction of the upper anterior teeth was done along with the application of LLLT on days 0, 3, 7, and 14 after extraction and then repeated biweekly until the end of retraction. Retraction was completed without LLLT application in the nonlaser group (NLG). Data concerning the rate of retraction as well as first molars and anterior positional changes were gained from digitized models and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans taken just before extraction and at the end of retraction. Treatment-associated pain and root resorption were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) and CBCT scans, respectively.

resultsFour patients dropped out prior to follow-up. The duration of retraction was 10.125 ± 2.876 and 13.643 ± 3.455 months in the LG and NLG, respectively. The LG showed a statistically significant faster rate of en masse retraction (0.833 ± 0.371 mm/month) compared to the NLG (0.526 ± 0.268 mm/month; P ≤ 0.035). The observed root resorption was significantly less in the LG (P ≤ 0.05) with comparable pain scores in both groups.

conclusionsWithin the constraints of the parameters of the LLLT used in the current study and despite the statistically significant results on the rate of en masse retraction and the associated root resorption, LLLT did not demonstrate a clinically relevant effect that justifies its use to enhance en masse retraction. NAME OF THE REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05183451 DATE OF REGISTRATION: January 10, 2022, "Retrospectively registered" URL OF TRIAL REGISTRY RECORD: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT05183451.