الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 164 |  |  |
| | | from | 164 | | |
Abstract
Orthodontic treatment usually requires a long duration of about 2-3 years, which poses high risk of caries, external root resorption, and decreased patient compliance. Several methods are used to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and shortens the duration of orthodontic treatment. Varieties of Surgical (corticotomy, micro-osteo perforation and piezocissions), and physical (electric current and LASER) methods were proposed based on our understanding of the biology of OTM.
Micro-osteo perforation is a surgical less invasive technique which is able to accelerate OTM creating predictable results. MOP can be completed chair side in minute, and does not require any advanced training. Also, piezocissions is a special less invasive category of corticotomy used in acceleration of OTM.
from all of the previously mentioned it was beneficial to compare between micro-osteo perforation as a less invasive surgical technique and piezocissions as non-invasive surgical technique for acceleration of OTM.
This study was constructed from two parallel groups (each group contained 10 patients).
group A: split mouth study design in which one side was control side and the other side received micro-osteoperforations (MOPs).
group B: split mouth study design in which one side was control side and the other side received piezocisions.
At first all patients were referred to an oral surgeon to perform extraction for the first premolars, followed by beginning of orthodontic treatment till finishing the phase of levelling and alignment.
All patients were sent to the radiology centre to get CBCT images before beginning of canine retraction. Mini-screws were inserted between 1st molar and 2nd premolar which will be used directly for canine retraction.
In Control sides, standardized canine retraction directly on the mini-screw using closing coil spring. While in MOPs sides, MOPs were performed in addition to the standard canine retraction. In piezocisions sides, piezocisions was performed in addition to the standard canine retraction.
This study extended for three months with direct intra-oral measurements taken every two weeks. Then, post-intervention CBCTs were taken for all patients to be compared with the pre-intervention CBCTs to assess the rate of canine retraction, tipping, molar anchorage loss. Also, direct intra-oral measurements were a key stone to assess the weekly rate of canine retraction.
Significant statistical differences were obvious in the rate of canine retraction between each intervention and the control sides as follow; the MOPs increased the rate of canine retraction by 1.5-fold more than the control side, piezocisions increased the rate of canine retraction by 1.3-fold more than the control side.