MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226263049 · doi:10.1093/ejo/cjac022

Physical properties of root cementum: Part 29. The effects of LED-mediated photobiomodulation on orthodontically induced root resorption and pain: a pilot split-mouth randomized controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4226263049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Sambevski, Alexandra K. Papadopoulou, Matthew Foley, Kerem Dalci, Peter Petocz, M. Ali Darendeliler, Oyku Dalci

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Orthodontics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Society of Orthodontists Foundation for Research and Education
KeywordsMedicineDentistryRandomized controlled trialBlindingRoot resorptionRandomizationVisual analogue scalePremolarRoot canalResorptionAnesthesiaSurgeryMolar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of light-emitting diode (LED)-mediated photobiomodulation (PBM) on orthodontic root resorption and pain. METHODS: Twenty patients (3 males, 17 females, mean age 15 years 6 months) needing bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions for orthodontic treatment were included in this single-centre, split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Both premolars received 150 g of buccal tipping force for 28 days. One side was randomly assigned to receive intraoral 850 nm wavelength, 60 mW/cm2 power, continuous LED illumination via OrthoPulse device (Biolux Research Ltd, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) for 5 minutes/day. The other side served as control. After 28 days, both premolars were extracted and scanned with micro-computed tomography for primary outcome assessment of root resorption crater volume measurements. For secondary outcome assessment, visual analogue scale pain questionnaires were used for both sides at 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days. Randomization was generated using www.randomization.com and allocation was concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was not possible during the experiment due to the use of tape to block light on control side of the devices. Assessors were blinded during outcome assessments. RESULTS: All 40 premolars from 20 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the mean total root resorption between the LED PBM and control sides (mean 0.216 versus 0.284 mm3, respectively, P = 0.306). The LED side was associated with less pain at 24 hours (P = 0.023) and marginally more pain at subsequent time points, which was not statistically significant. No harms were observed. LIMITATIONS: Short study duration and the inability to blind patients and clinician during clinical part of study. CONCLUSION: This 28-day randomized split-mouth controlled trial showed that daily, LED-mediated PBM application, when applied for 5 minute/day, does not influence orthodontic root resorption. It is associated with significantly less pain 24 hours after the application of orthodontic force, but no difference thereafter. These results should be tested on patients undergoing a full course of orthodontic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000652471.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of OrthodonticsSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207