Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2026
Acceleration of canine retraction with conventional versus modified piezocision techniques : A randomized controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khiabani Kazem, Moradinejad Mehrnaz, Babadi Anita, Amirzade-Iranaq Mohammad Hosein
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the acceleration effect of piezocision and modified piezocision (a combination of piezocision and piezopuncture) on canine retraction.
METHODS: In this two-arm parallel, split-mouth randomized clinical trial, 30 participants (15-25 years) undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with the extraction of first upper premolars and canine retraction were randomly assigned to piezocision or modified piezocision groups. Thirty surgical procedures were performed using a split-mouth design, with 15 in each interventional arm, and the contralateral sides were treated in a conventional way (control). Outcomes assessed included the amount of canine retraction (primary outcome variable), rotation, inclination changes, root resorption, and molar anchorage loss. Data analysis included paired t‑tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (between experimental and control sides), independent t‑tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests (between experimental sides). The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Canine retraction on the experimental side in the piezocision group was 1.5 times greater than on the control side (3.83 ± 0.17 mm vs. 2.46 ± 0.31 mm, P < 0.001). In the modified piezocision group, retraction was nearly twice as great on the experimental side compared to the control (5.13 ± 0.14 mm vs. 2.50 ± 0.32 mm, p = 0.001). The modified piezocision technique showed significantly higher (p-value < 0.001) canine retraction than the original piezocision technique. Secondary outcomes showed nonsignificant differences. No harm was observed other than mild postsurgical pain and swelling, which were controlled with appropriate medications.
CONCLUSION: Both modified and traditional piezocision techniques effectively accelerated canine retraction. However, the modified technique demonstrated superior results, offering a promising avenue for future orthodontic practice.
METHODS: In this two-arm parallel, split-mouth randomized clinical trial, 30 participants (15-25 years) undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with the extraction of first upper premolars and canine retraction were randomly assigned to piezocision or modified piezocision groups. Thirty surgical procedures were performed using a split-mouth design, with 15 in each interventional arm, and the contralateral sides were treated in a conventional way (control). Outcomes assessed included the amount of canine retraction (primary outcome variable), rotation, inclination changes, root resorption, and molar anchorage loss. Data analysis included paired t‑tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (between experimental and control sides), independent t‑tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests (between experimental sides). The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Canine retraction on the experimental side in the piezocision group was 1.5 times greater than on the control side (3.83 ± 0.17 mm vs. 2.46 ± 0.31 mm, P < 0.001). In the modified piezocision group, retraction was nearly twice as great on the experimental side compared to the control (5.13 ± 0.14 mm vs. 2.50 ± 0.32 mm, p = 0.001). The modified piezocision technique showed significantly higher (p-value < 0.001) canine retraction than the original piezocision technique. Secondary outcomes showed nonsignificant differences. No harm was observed other than mild postsurgical pain and swelling, which were controlled with appropriate medications.
CONCLUSION: Both modified and traditional piezocision techniques effectively accelerated canine retraction. However, the modified technique demonstrated superior results, offering a promising avenue for future orthodontic practice.