 |
| Title |
Supplemental Vibrational Force Does Not Decrease Time to Reach Final Alignment in Orthodontic Treatment |
| Clinical Question |
In patients receiving fixed appliance orthodontic treatment, does supplemental vibrational force significantly decrease the amount of time to reach final alignment compared to traditional fixed appliance treatment alone? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
For patient receiving fixed appliance orthodontic treatment, there is no evidence that support that supplemental vibrational force decrease the time to reach final alignment. This is supported by a single randomized control trial of 81 patients. |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 25758457 | Woodhouse/2015 | 81 subjects undergoing first premolar extraction-based fixed appliance treatment | Randomized Controlled Trial | | Key results | The 81 subjects were divided into three treatment groups. The Accel group received preadjusted edgewise fixed appliance treatment with the use of a functional vibration device for 20 minutes a day. The Accel sham group received the orthodontic treatment with the use of a non-functional vibration device for 20 minutes a day. The fixed-only group received the orthodontic treatment without any additional device. The groups showed no significant difference in the time needed to reach final alignment from initial (P=0.41) or baseline alignment (P=.049). | |
| Evidence Search |
"Orthodontics"[Mesh] AND "Vibration"[Mesh] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
Validity:
The randomized control trial divided the 81 subjects into three groups with allocation concealment. At the start of the trial, the three groups did not have significant difference in their mandibular baseline irregularity index; mean, 8.5 ± 3.8 mm (95% CI, 7.6-9.3). Seventy-seven of the 81 subjects completed the treatment, and the study had a high completion rate of 95%. The group given the functional vibrational device and the group given the non-functional vibrational device were given the same direct verbal and written instructions. The study monitored compliance by a built-in timer in the device. The researchers told the subjects that the timers would monitor their use. However, the timer failed to collect a complete data set, therefore actual compliance was unknown and a potential issue in this study.
|
| Applicability |
The randomized control trial included subjects who are representative of orthodontic patients seen in a dental practice, with a mean age of 14.1 years old and without any medical contraindications. The study showed that there is no increase in tooth movement when using supplemental vibrational devices. Use of such devices increases the cost for the patient without the benefit of decreasing the treatment time. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Orthodontics) |
| Keywords |
Orthodontics, Vibration, Tooth Movement,
|
| ID# |
2988 |
| Date of submission: |
03/04/2016 |
| E-mail |
hasegawas@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Satoko Hasegawa |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Clarence C. Bryk, DDS, MS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
BRYKC@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
| None available | |
|
|
