Abstract: Aim. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a device—the OrthoPulseTM device—that uses a of type of low-level light therapy termed light accelerated orthodontics (LAO) to increase orthodontic tooth movement. The aim was to determine the effect of the device on the magnitude and speed of permanent canine retraction against a second premolar abutting a first molar. It was ... read morehypothesized that the magnitude and speed of movement of canines exposed to LAO will be greater than canines not exposed to LAO. Materials and Methods. The study used a split-mouth design. Patients attended the Department of Orthodontics at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine for orthodontic treatment and were enrolled when they met the study selection criteria that included bilateral first premolar extractions in either the maxillary and/or mandibular arches. The canines then were retracted against the second premolar abutting the first molar. The device was used by the patient once canine retraction was started; and for each patient only one half of the patient's arch was exposed to LAO via the device that emitted an infrared wavelength of 850 nm at an irradiance of 120 mW/cm2 for 2.5 minutes per day per arch. The patients were followed longitudinally and arch measurements were made immediately before and after use of the device. For both sides of the arch descriptive statistics were computed for the following: The magnitude of the absolute distance, change in distance, and relative distance between the canine and second premolar, and canine and molar, respectively; rotation of the canines, second premolars, and molars; and movement of the second premolar and molar. Paired t-tests were used to test for significant differences in these measures between the two sides of the arch. Results. The final study sample consisted of five arches from five patients. The findings were that there was a marginally significant difference (p=0.053) for the distance between the canine and premolar between the LAO therapy side of the arch and the control side. The distance for the LAO therapy side was smaller. There was a statistically significant difference (p=0.003) for rotation of the premolars between the LAO therapy side of the arch and the control side. The second premolar on the control side had a 1.6-fold greater rotation. There was a statistically significant difference for rotation of the molars between the LAO therapy side of the arch and the control side (p<0.05). The molar on the on the LAO therapy side had a two-fold and a 1.7-fold greater rotation at V3 and V4, respectively. Conclusion: The findings demonstrated a difference in molar rotation with the use of the device and a suggested tendency for the device to increase the magnitude of canine distalization.
Thesis (M.S.)--Tufts University, 2017.
Submitted to the Dept. of Orthodontics.
Advisor: Carroll Ann Trotman.
Committee: Sercan Akyalcin, Matthew Finkelman, and Georgios Kanavakis.