American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2018
Effects of supplemental vibrational force on space closure, treatment duration, and occlusal outcome: A multicenter randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
DiBiase Andrew T, Woodhouse Neil R, Papageorgiou Spyridon N, Johnson Nicola, Slipper Carmel, Grant James, Alsaleh Maryam, Khaja Yousef, Cobourne Martyn T
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: A multicenter parallel 3-arm randomized clinical trial was carried out in 3 university hospitals in the United Kingdom to investigate the effect of supplemental vibratory force on space closure and treatment outcome with fixed appliances.
METHODS: Eighty-one subjects less than 20 years of age with mandibular incisor irregularity undergoing extraction-based fixed appliance treatment were randomly allocated to supplementary (20 minutes/day) use of an intraoral vibrational device (AcceleDent; OrthoAccel Technologies, Houston, Tex) (n = 29), an identical nonfunctional (sham) device (n = 25), or fixed-appliance only (n = 27). Space closure in the mandibular arch was measured from dental study casts taken at the start of space closure, at the next appointment, and at completion of space closure. Final records were taken at completion of treatment. Data were analyzed blindly on a per-protocol basis with descriptive statistics, 1-way analysis of variance, and linear regression modeling with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Sixty-one subjects remained in the trial at start of space closure, with all 3 groups comparable for baseline characteristics. The overall median rate of initial mandibular arch space closure (primary outcome) was 0.89 mm per month with no difference for either the AcceleDent group (difference, -0.09 mm/month; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.22 mm/month; P = 0.57) or the sham group (difference, -0.02 mm/month; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.29 mm/month; P = 0.91) compared with the fixed only group. Similarly, no significant differences were identified between groups for secondary outcomes, including overall treatment duration (median, 18.6 months; P >0.05), number of visits (median, 12; P >0.05), and percentage of improvement in the Peer Assessment Rating (median, 90.0%; P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental vibratory force during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances does not affect space closure, treatment duration, total number of visits, or final occlusal outcome.
REGISTRATION: NCT02314975.
PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.
FUNDING: AcceleDent units were donated by OrthoAccel Technologies; no contribution to the conduct or the writing of this study was made by the manufacturer.
METHODS: Eighty-one subjects less than 20 years of age with mandibular incisor irregularity undergoing extraction-based fixed appliance treatment were randomly allocated to supplementary (20 minutes/day) use of an intraoral vibrational device (AcceleDent; OrthoAccel Technologies, Houston, Tex) (n = 29), an identical nonfunctional (sham) device (n = 25), or fixed-appliance only (n = 27). Space closure in the mandibular arch was measured from dental study casts taken at the start of space closure, at the next appointment, and at completion of space closure. Final records were taken at completion of treatment. Data were analyzed blindly on a per-protocol basis with descriptive statistics, 1-way analysis of variance, and linear regression modeling with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Sixty-one subjects remained in the trial at start of space closure, with all 3 groups comparable for baseline characteristics. The overall median rate of initial mandibular arch space closure (primary outcome) was 0.89 mm per month with no difference for either the AcceleDent group (difference, -0.09 mm/month; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.22 mm/month; P = 0.57) or the sham group (difference, -0.02 mm/month; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.29 mm/month; P = 0.91) compared with the fixed only group. Similarly, no significant differences were identified between groups for secondary outcomes, including overall treatment duration (median, 18.6 months; P >0.05), number of visits (median, 12; P >0.05), and percentage of improvement in the Peer Assessment Rating (median, 90.0%; P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental vibratory force during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances does not affect space closure, treatment duration, total number of visits, or final occlusal outcome.
REGISTRATION: NCT02314975.
PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before trial commencement.
FUNDING: AcceleDent units were donated by OrthoAccel Technologies; no contribution to the conduct or the writing of this study was made by the manufacturer.