European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine

Objectives: Micro-osteoperforation is a minimally invasive procedure to accelerate
orthodontic tooth movement. Accelerated orthodontics can sometimes lead to migration of
the anchor teeth. The objective of this randomised control study was to compare the
amount of mesial molar migration between different depths (3 millimetre and 6 millimetre)
of micro-osteoperforation assisted canine retraction.
Methods: Ten adult patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolar for orthodontic
treatment were enrolled for this split mouth study. The micro-osteoperforation of varying
depth (3 millimetre and 6 millimetre) were made using a mini implant. Direct anchorage was
taken with the help of a mini implant to retract the canine teeth. The patients were divided
into two groups - 3 millimetre depth and 6 millimetre depth of micro-osteoperforation. The
primary outcome was to compare the mean mesial molar migration between the two
groups for three months.
Results: The mean mesial molar migration with 3 millimetre depth of micro osteoperforation
was 0.49 ± 0.20 millimetre and with 6 millimetre depth it was 0.39 ± 0.18 millimetre, which
was statistically insignificant (P >0.350).
Conclusion: Micro-osteoperforations of different depths do not cause a significant
difference in mesial molar migration and are not clinically significant. When it comes to
clinical situations even a slight mesial movement of molar can have high significance in the
treatment outcome.

Abstract: Background: Accelerated orthodontics aimed at reducing orthodontic treatment
duration. The main setback that occurs in the treatment of patients who require first premolar
extraction is the distalization of the canines, which requires longer treatment duration. There
are many surgical techniques evolved to accelerate tooth movement. So this study will help us
to evaluate and compare canine retraction rate between two surgical techniques i.e
corticotomy facilitated orthodontics and piezocision technique. Objective: The main objective
of this study is to compare rate of canine retraction in corticotomy facilitated orthodontics and
piezocision technique. Methods: The sample consisted of 22 patients (15-25 years old) with
Class II Division 1 malocclusions. The suggested treatment plan for the given sample was
extraction of the maxillary first premolars with subsequent canine retraction. Split mouth
study design was selected for study. After initial leveling and alignment, first premolar will be
extracted then one side was assigned for corticotomy and contralateral side for piezocision in
the area of first premolar and canine retraction was initiated bilaterally with 0.019×0.025 SS
wire in slot. Study models will be obtained presurgery T0 and postsurgery at T1, T2 and T3
time interval. The following variables were examined over a 3-month follow-up period: rate of
canine retraction, molar anchorage loss, canine rotation with the help of study model. Results:
This study will found that rate of canine retraction will be more in corticotomy facilitated
orthodontics when compared with piezocision. Conclusion: This study will conclude that
corticotomy will be more efficient technique for canine retraction when compared to
piezocision.

Background: The present study was conducted to compare root resorption between Micro-osteoperforation (MOP) and Piezocision (PzC) assisted orthodontics.
Materials & Methods: 36 patients requiring orthodontic treatment were divided into two groups of 18 each. Group I was treated using MOP in one side while the other side served as control. Group II was treated with PzC in one side with no intervention done on the other side. Radiographs were obtained before and after canine retraction to calculate amount of RR.
Results: Root resorption in experiment side in group I before canine retraction found to be 27.90 mm and after canine retraction was 27.42 mm and on control side pre- operatively was 27.86 mm and post- operatively was 27.36 mm. The difference was non- significant (P> 0.05). Root resorption in experiment side in group II pre- operatively found to be 26.76 mm and post- operatively was 26.62 mm and on control side pre- operatively was 27.80 mm and post- operatively was 25.41 mm. The difference was significant (P< 0.05).
Conclusion: Authors found significant differences in apical RR were observed between the PzC group and the control group after canine retraction. Significant apical RR were observed in the experimental PzC side compared to experimental MOP side postoperatively after canine retraction.