DESIGN: A split-mouth randomised clinical trial.
SETTING: Subjects were recruited and treated in the outpatient clinic, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University.
PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen subjects with mean age 20.9 (±3.4) years who required extraction of maxillary first premolar teeth and mini-implant-supported canine retraction.
METHODS: Thirty orthodontic mini-implants were inserted bilaterally in the maxillary arches of recruited subjects following alignment and levelling. Mini-implants were immediately loaded with a force of 150 g using nickel titanium coil springs with split-mouth randomisation to a low-intensity laser-treated side and control side. The experimental sides were exposed to low-intensity laser therapy from a diode laser with a wavelength of 940 nm at (0, 7, 14, 21 days) after mini-implant placement. Mini-implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis at (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 weeks) after implant placement.
RESULTS: A total sample of 28 mini-implants were investigated with 14 in each group. Clinically, both mini-implant groups had the same overall success rate of 78.5%. There were no significant differences in resonance frequency scores between low-intensity laser and control sides from baseline to week 2. However, from week 3 to 10, the low-intensity laser sides showed significantly increased mean resonance frequency values compared to control (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of some significant differences in resonance frequency between mini-implants exposed to low-intensity laser light over a 10 weeks period there were no differences in mini-implant stability. Low-intensity laser light cannot be recommended as a clinically useful adjunct to promoting mini-implant stability during canine retraction.
SEARCH METHODS: Electronic and manual search was done up to October 2017.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Clinical and observational studies that compared GPP to control; patients without GPP evaluated either before or after the age for secondary bone graft (SBG).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies selection was done by 2 authors independently. Risk ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included in the review. All studies were at high risk of bias. Poorer alveolar bone quality was found in the GPP group compared to the SBG group. The pooled data showed a statistically significant increase in the incidence of Bergland type III in the GPP group compared to SBG (risk ratio: 11.51, 95% CI: 3.39-35.15). As for facial growth, GPP group resulted in a more retruded maxillary position (as indicated by "Sella-Nasion-Subspinale" angle [SNA value]) compared to control group by -1.36 (CI: -4.21 to 1.49) and -1.66 (CI: -2.48 to -0.84) when evaluated at 5 and 10 years, respectively. The protocol for presurgical infant orthopedics used in conjunction with the GPP procedure might have affected the results of the alveolar bone and facial growth outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of GPP cannot be drawn. Very weak evidence indicated that GPP might not be an efficient method for alveolar bone reconstruction for patients with unilateral and bilateral CLP. Gingivoperiosteoplasty surgery could lead to maxillary growth inhibition in patients with CLP.