METHODS: Electronic database and hand search of English literature in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trial.gov, with author clarification were performed. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing MOPs with conventional treatment involving both extraction and nonextraction. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used for quality assessment. Studies were analyzed with chi-square-based Q statistic methods, I2 index, fixed-effects, and random-effects model. Quantitative analysis was done on homogenous studies using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis of 2 homogenous studies indicated insignificant effect with MOPs (0.01 mm less OTM; 95% CI, 0.13-0.11; P = 0.83). No difference (P >0.05) was found in anchorage loss, root resorption, gingival recession, and pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 2 low-risk of bias studies showed no effect with single application MOPs over a short observation period; however, the overall evidence was low. The quality of evidence for MOP side effects ranged from high to low. Future studies are suggested to investigate repeated MOPs effect over the entire treatment duration for different models of OTM and its related biological changes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CDR42019118642.
METHODS: In 24 participants, 140-200 g of force was applied for mandibular canine retraction. Three MOPs were made according to the scheduled intervals of the 3 different groups: group 1 (MOP 4 weeks), group 2 (MOP 8 weeks), and group 3 (MOP 12 weeks) directly at the mandibular buccal cortical bone of extracted first premolars sites. Cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained at the 12th week after MOP application. Computed tomography Analyzer software (version 22.214.171.124; Skyscan, Kontich, Belgium) was used to compute the trabecular alveolar BV/TV ratio.
RESULTS: A significant difference was observed in the rate of canine movement between control and MOP. Paired t test analysis showed a significant difference (P = 0.001) in the mean BV/TV ratio between control and MOP sides in all the frequency intervals groups. However, the difference was significant only in group 1 (P = 0.014). A strong negative correlation (r = -0.86) was observed between the rate of canine tooth movement and the BV/TV ratio at the MOP side for group 1 and all frequency intervals together (r = -0.42).
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of orthodontic tooth movement can be accelerated by the MOP technique with frequently repeated MOPs throughout the treatment.