CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04999150Updated Aug 17, 2021

Comparison of Corticotomy and Micro-Osteoperforation During Canine Retraction

An interventional study of Micro-Osteoperforations and Corticotomy in Malocclusion, Class I/II, sponsored by University of Puerto Rico. Completed at 1 site in Puerto Rico. Open to participants aged 12 Years to 45 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-08-17.

Sponsored by University of Puerto Rico · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 2 years 10 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Oct 2018, registered Aug 2021).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
13
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
12 Years to 45 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Corticotomy and micro-osteoperforation (MOP) have been proven to accelerate tooth movement and shorten orthodontic treatment time, compared to conventional treatment. MOP is less invasive; however, it is unclear whether it is as effective as a corticotomy. The purpose of this study was to compare the maxillary canine retraction achieved by these techniques.

Read the detailed description

Thirteen patients (5 females, 8 males; mean age, 18.07±6.74 years) with healthy permanent dentition requiring the extraction of maxillary first premolars were included in a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Subjects with previous orthodontic or endodontic treatment of canines were excluded. At least 3 months post-extraction, MOPs, and corticotomies were performed distal to the canines. Mini-screws with closed-coil springs (150g) were used for canine retraction. Dental casts were attained at baseline (T0) and 3 months post-intervention (T1). Calibrated examiners measured the distances from the canine to the second premolar on both sides. A Signed-rank sum test was used to compare canine retraction achieved in 3 months (T0-T1) in two sides

02

Conditions studied

  • Malocclusion, Class I/II

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Corticotomy; MOP; Tooth movement
03

In context

Malocclusion

457 studies on the registry are indexed under Malocclusion; 89 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 13 is below the median of 36 across 372 interventional studies indexed under Malocclusion.

Browse Malocclusion studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Puerto Rico is the lead sponsor of 45 studies on the registry; 15 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
12 Years to 45 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Healthy permanent dentition requiring the extraction of maxillary first premolars with less than 8mm of maxillary anterior crowding

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous orthodontic or endodontic treatment of the canines
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
13 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Corticotomy

    1. A full-thickness labial mucoperiosteal flap was reflected. 2. 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. 3. Cortical-cancellous bone grafts (0.5cc; PuraGraft, Kingwood, TX) were placed at the corticotomy sites. 4. The mini-screws were placed. 5. A nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed-coil spring was placed and secured with a 0.014"SS ligature wire at the canine and mini-screw. A Dontrix gauge (Orthopli Corp., Philadelphia, PA) was used to measure the force (150g).

    Procedure: Corticotomy

  • Experimental
    Micro-Osteoperforation

    1. 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). 2. 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. 3. The mini-screws were placed. 4. A NiTi closed-coil spring was placed and secured with a 0.014"SS ligature wire at the canine and mini-screw. A Dontrix gauge was used to measure the force (150g).

    Procedure: Micro-Osteoperforations

Interventions

  • ProcedureMicro-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 0.014"SS ligature wire at the canine and mini-screw. A Dontrix gauge was used to measure the force (150g)

    Also known as: MOP

  • ProcedureCorticotomy

    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 0.014"SS ligature wire at the canine and mini-screw. A Dontrix gauge (Orthopli Corp., Philadelphia, PA) was used to measure the force (150g)

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Canine retraction

    Amount of tooth movement (in mm) attained by the maxillary canines after retracting them

    Time frame: 3 months

07

Study locations

1 site
  • UPR Medical Sciences Campus
    San Juan, 00921, Puerto Rico
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Li Y, Jacox LA, Little SH, Ko CC. Orthodontic tooth movement: The biology and clinical implications. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2018 Apr;34(4):207-214. doi: 10.1016/j.kjms.2018.01.007. Epub 2018 Feb 3. PubMed 29655409 ↗
  • Aboul-Ela SM, El-Beialy AR, El-Sayed KM, Selim EM, El-Mangoury NH, Mostafa YA. Miniscrew implant-supported maxillary canine retraction with and without corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Feb;139(2):252-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.028. PubMed 21300255 ↗
  • Frost HM. The regional acceleratory phenomenon: a review. Henry Ford Hosp Med J. 1983;31(1):3-9. No abstract available. PubMed 6345475 ↗
  • Verna C. Regional Acceleratory Phenomenon. Front Oral Biol. 2016;18:28-35. doi: 10.1159/000351897. Epub 2015 Nov 24. PubMed 26599115 ↗
  • Aboalnaga AA, Salah Fayed MM, El-Ashmawi NA, Soliman SA. Effect of micro-osteoperforation on the rate of canine retraction: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Prog Orthod. 2019 Jun 3;20(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40510-019-0274-0. PubMed 31155698 ↗
  • Cheung T, Park J, Lee D, Kim C, Olson J, Javadi S, Lawson G, McCabe J, Moon W, Ting K, Hong C. Ability of mini-implant-facilitated micro-osteoperforations to accelerate tooth movement in rats. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Dec;150(6):958-967. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.030. PubMed 27894545 ↗
  • Fischer TJ. Orthodontic treatment acceleration with corticotomy-assisted exposure of palatally impacted canines. Angle Orthod. 2007 May;77(3):417-20. doi: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0417:OTAWCE]2.0.CO;2. PubMed 17465647 ↗
  • Leethanakul C, Kanokkulchai S, Pongpanich S, Leepong N, Charoemratrote C. Interseptal bone reduction on the rate of maxillary canine retraction. Angle Orthod. 2014 Sep;84(5):839-45. doi: 10.2319/100613-737.1. Epub 2014 Mar 4. PubMed 24592904 ↗
  • Alikhani M, Raptis M, Zoldan B, Sangsuwon C, Lee YB, Alyami B, Corpodian C, Barrera LM, Alansari S, Khoo E, Teixeira C. Effect of micro-osteoperforations on the rate of tooth movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Nov;144(5):639-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.06.017. PubMed 24182579 ↗
  • AMLER MH, JOHNSON PL, SALMAN I. Histological and histochemical investigation of human alveolar socket healing in undisturbed extraction wounds. J Am Dent Assoc. 1960 Jul;61:32-44. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1960.0152. No abstract available. PubMed 13793201 ↗
  • Arreghini A, Lombardo L, Mollica F, Siciliani G. Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross section. Prog Orthod. 2014 Sep 25;15(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x. PubMed 25329505 ↗
  • Pandis N, Walsh T, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Split-mouth designs in orthodontics: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials. Eur J Orthod. 2013 Dec;35(6):783-9. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs108. Epub 2013 Feb 1. PubMed 23376899 ↗
  • Alikhani M, Alansari S, Sangsuwon C, et al. Micro-osteoperforations: Minimally invasive accelerated tooth movement. Semin Orthod. 2015; 21(3): 162-169.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 17, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04999150
Lead sponsor
University of Puerto Rico
Collaborators
University of Zagreb
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 10, 2021
Start date
Oct 2, 2018
Primary completion
Jul 11, 2019
Completion
Sep 26, 2020
Last update
Aug 17, 2021

Study contacts

Augusto R Elias, DMD,MSD
study director · Assitant Dean of Research

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion