Comparison of Corticotomy and Micro-Osteoperforation During Canine Retraction

NACompletedINTERVENTIONAL
Enrollment

13

Participants

Timeline

Start Date

October 2, 2018

Primary Completion Date

July 11, 2019

Study Completion Date

September 26, 2020

Conditions
Malocclusion, Class I/II
Interventions
PROCEDURE

Micro-Osteoperforations

"MOPs were performed with a stainless-steel manual drill tip that had 1.6mm diameter with an adjustable depth set to 5mm (Excellerator® RT; Propel Orthodontics, Milpitas, CA).~Six perforations were made along 2 parallel vertical lines (each line with 3 holes spaced \~2mm apart) distal to the canine and perpendicular to the buccal cortical bone.~The mini-screws were placed. A NiTi closed-coil spring was placed and secured with a 0.014SS ligature wire at the canine and mini-screw. A Dontrix gauge was used to measure the force (150g)"

PROCEDURE

Corticotomy

"A full-thickness labial mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. Two vertical corticotomies (1 mesial and 1 distal to the canine) were performed. The cortical bone was cut 2 to 3 mm below the alveolar crest towards the apex, until bone marrow was exposed.~Cortical-cancellous bone grafts (0.5cc; PuraGraft, Kingwood, TX) were placed at the corticotomy sites.~The mini-screws were placed. A nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed-coil spring was placed and secured with a 0.014SS ligature wire at the canine and mini-screw. A Dontrix gauge (Orthopli Corp., Philadelphia, PA) was used to measure the force (150g)"

Trial Locations (1)

00921

UPR Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan

All Listed Sponsors
collaborator

University of Zagreb

OTHER

lead

University of Puerto Rico

OTHER

NCT04999150 - Comparison of Corticotomy and Micro-Osteoperforation During Canine Retraction | Biotech Hunter | Biotech Hunter