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.
Abstract
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.
TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.
DiBiase, Andrew T