ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07442825Updated Mar 2, 2026

Evaluating Laser and Piezocision vs. Piezocision Alone on Root Resorption and Gingival Health During Tooth Retraction

An interventional study of Flapless Corticotomy (Piezocision) and Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) in Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Division 1, sponsored by Damascus University. Completed at 1 site in Syria. Open to participants aged 17 Years to 28 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-02.

Sponsored by Damascus University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 2 years 9 months after the study started (first participant enrolled May 2023, registered Feb 2026).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
66
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
17 Years to 28 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This trial aims to determine whether using a special laser (low-level laser therapy, or LLLT) in combination with a minor surgical procedure (piezocision) can safely accelerate orthodontic treatment. We are looking at its effect on two main safety issues: root shortening (root resorption) and gum health. We will compare three groups of patients who have their front teeth pulled back: one group receives the surgery and the laser, one receives the surgery alone, and one receives standard braces. We will measure root length on X-rays and check gums at the start, before the retraction phase, and after all the space is closed.

Read the detailed description

Class II, Division 1 malocclusion is a common condition often treated by extracting upper premolars and retraction of the front teeth (en-masse retraction). This phase can take 9-12 months, increasing the risk of complications like poor oral hygiene, gum inflammation, and external apical root resorption (EARR). To address this, methods to accelerate tooth movement have been developed, including surgical (piezocision) and non-surgical (LLLT) techniques. While these methods aim to reduce treatment time, their combined effects on safety outcomes, such as EARR and periodontal health, are unclear. This three-arm randomized controlled trial evaluates the effects of en-masse retraction assisted by piezocision combined with LLLT (FC+LLLT), compared to piezocision alone (FC) and conventional treatment (CONT). Sixty-six patients were randomly assigned to the three groups. The piezocision procedure involved 18 minimal incisions and cortical bone perforations using a piezosurgery tip. The FC+LLLT group received adjunctive Ga-Al-As diode laser (808 nm, 1.1 W, 4 J/point) at multiple sessions. En-masse retraction was performed with 250g force using Ni-Ti coil springs from mini-screws. EARR was measured on standardized panoramic radiographs at T0 (pre-treatment), T1 (pre-retraction), and T2 (post-retraction) using a crown-length correction method. Periodontal health (Gingival Index, Papillary Bleeding Index, Dental Plaque Index, and Gingival Recession) was assessed at the same time points. The study aims to determine if these acceleration techniques increase the risk of these iatrogenic complications.

02

Conditions studied

  • Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Division 1
03

In context

Malocclusion, Angle Class II

124 studies on the registry are indexed under Malocclusion, Angle Class II; 19 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 66 is above the median of 34 across 115 interventional studies indexed under Malocclusion, Angle Class II.

Browse Malocclusion, Angle Class II studies →

Lead sponsor

Damascus University is the lead sponsor of 212 studies on the registry; 11 are open to participants now.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
17 Years to 28 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Healthy patients aged 17-28 years.
  2. Diagnosed with a Class II division 1 malocclusion, indicated for extraction of the upper first premolars, with an overjet of 4-10 mm and a normal or increased facial height assessed clinically and cephalometrically using three angles (MM= 23ᵒ-33ᵒ, Jarabak Ratio ≤ 64%, and Y-axis angle= 66ᵒ-75ᵒ)
  3. A skeletal Class II relationship, confirmed by a cephalometric ANB angle between 4° and 7°
  4. An overbite of 0%-33%
  5. Good oral hygiene, defined by a probing depth of ≤3 mm and no radiographic evidence of alveolar bone loss
  6. Absence or a mild level of crowding
  7. A full complement of teeth, excluding third molars.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. A history of previous orthodontic treatment
  2. Any systemic disease or medication known to interfere with orthodontic tooth movement.
  3. Congenitally missing or extracted teeth in the maxilla (except third molars)
  4. Poor oral hygiene,
  5. Active periodontal disease (probing depth ≥4 mm, radiographic bone loss, gingival index >1, plaque index >1)
  6. Moderate to severe maxillary crowding (Little's Irregularity Index ≥4).
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
66 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    The FC+LLLT Group

    Participants in this arm receive en-masse retraction assisted by flapless corticotomy (piezocision) and subsequent low-level laser therapy (LLLT).

    Procedure: Level Laser Therapy (LLLT)

  • Experimental
    The FC Group

    Participants in this arm receive en-masse retraction assisted by flapless corticotomy (piezocision) alone

    Procedure: Flapless Corticotomy (Piezocision)

  • Active comparator
    The control group

    Participants in this arm receive conventional en-masse retraction with no surgical or laser adjuncts

    Procedure: Traditional treatment

Interventions

  • ProcedureFlapless Corticotomy (Piezocision)

    Performed 4 days before retraction. Eighteen minimal intrasulcular incisions and cortical bone perforations (3mm depth) using a piezosurgery microsaw tip.

  • ProcedureLevel Laser Therapy (LLLT)

    Ga-Al-As diode laser (808 nm, 1.1 W, 4 J/point, 15 sec/point) applied to 32 points per session. Administered on days 0, 3, 7, 14, and then bi-weekly for a total of four sessions post-initiation, starting six weeks post-corticotomy.

  • ProcedureTraditional treatment

    Patients in this group will be traditionally treated without being subjected to corticotomy or LLLT.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in external apical root resorption

    The root length will be measured for each root of six upper anterior teeth. The method originally described by Linge and Linge will be used. The amount of root resorption (in millimeters) will be calculated using the following equation: Root Resorption = Root Length (T0) - (Root Length (T1) × Correction Factor). The Correction Factor will be calculated by dividing the crown Length (T0) to the crown Length (T1).

    Time frame: (T1) one day before treatment commencement, (T2) at the end of the levelling stage (expected to occur within 3 - 4 months), (T3) one day after the end of retraction (expected to occur within 6 months).

  2. Change in the Gingival Index

    Assessment will be performed using a gingival probe according to the Silness and Loe method: 0\. Normal gingiva. 1. Mild inflammation: slight color change, slight edema. No bleeding on probing. 2. Moderate inflammation: redness, edema, and glazing. Bleeding on probing. 3. Severe inflammation: marked redness and edema, ulceration, and tendency to spontaneous bleeding.

    Time frame: (T1) one day before treatment commencement, (T2) at the end of the levelling stage (expected to occur within 3 - 4 months), (T3) one day after the end of retraction (expected to occur within 6 months).

  3. Change in the Dental Plaque Index

    Assessment will be performed using a gingival probe according to the Silness and Loe method. 0\. No plaque. 1. A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after a disclosing solution is applied or after the probe is used on the tooth surface. 2. Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or on the tooth and gingival margin, which can be seen with the naked eye. 3. Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or the tooth and the gingival margin.

    Time frame: (T1) one day before treatment commencement, (T2) at the end of the levelling stage (expected to occur within 3 - 4 months), (T3) one day after the end of retraction (expected to occur within 6 months).

  4. Change in the Bleeding Index

    The Bleeding index will be used to assess the status of periodontal tissues and the amount of congestion in the gingival margins around the anterior teeth. According to Muhlemann, an assessment will be performed using a gingival probe. 0. No bleeding. 1. A single discrete bleeding point appears. 2. Several isolated bleeding points or a single fine line of blood appear. 3. The interdental triangle fills with blood shortly after probing. 4. Profuse bleeding occurs after probing; blood flows immediately into the marginal sulcus.

    Time frame: (T1) one day before treatment commencement, (T2) at the end of the levelling stage (expected to occur within 3 - 4 months), (T3) one day after the end of retraction (expected to occur within 6 months).

  5. Change in Gingival Width

    This will be measured in millimeters from the cement-enamel junction to the gingival margin level around the six anterior teeth

    Time frame: (T1) one day before treatment commencement, (T2) at the end of the levelling stage (expected to occur within 3 - 4 months), (T3) one day after the end of retraction (expected to occur within 6 months).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in Pulp Vitality

    This will be assessed using a cold test with -50° ethyl chloride spray. The patient's pain response will be recorded to confirm pulp vitality. There are two answers: (1) Yes, or (2) No.

    Time frame: (T1) one day before treatment commencement, (T2) at the end of the levelling stage (expected to occur within 3 - 4 months), (T3) one day after the end of retraction (expected to occur within 6 months).

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Orthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry
    Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic DM20AM19, Syria
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Alfawal AM, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Hamadah O, Brad B. Effectiveness of minimally invasive surgical procedures in the acceleration of tooth movement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Orthod. 2016 Dec;17(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s40510-016-0146-9. Epub 2016 Oct 24. PubMed 27696311 ↗
  • Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):275-83. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046. Epub 2013 Jun 20. PubMed 23787192 ↗
  • Mousa MM, Hajeer MY, Burhan AS, Darwich KMA, Almahdi WH, Aljabban O, Awawdeh MA, Almasri IA. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Flapless Corticotomy with Low-Level Laser Therapy in En Masse Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth: A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Pract. 2023 Nov 22;13(6):1501-1519. doi: 10.3390/clinpract13060132. PubMed 38131681 ↗
  • Mousa MM, Hajeer MY, Alam MK, Aljabban O, Almahdi WH. Evaluation of low-level laser therapy and piezocision in the en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth. Eur J Orthod. 2025 Apr 8;47(3):cjaf026. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjaf026. PubMed 40353446 ↗
  • Khlef HN, Hajeer MY, Ajaj MA, Heshmeh O, Youssef N, Mahaini L. The effectiveness of traditional corticotomy vs flapless corticotomy in miniscrew-supported en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion: A single-centered, randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Dec;158(6):e111-e120. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.08.008. Epub 2020 Nov 4. PubMed 33158633 ↗
  • Al-Ibrahim HM, Hajeer MY, Alkhouri I, Zinah E. Leveling and alignment time and the periodontal status in patients with severe upper crowding treated by corticotomy-assisted self-ligating brackets in comparison with conventional or self-ligating brackets only: a 3-arm randomized controlled clinical trial. J World Fed Orthod. 2022 Feb;11(1):3-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2021.09.002. Epub 2021 Oct 21. PubMed 34688577 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from May 2023 to primary completion in Dec 2024, 19 months.

Of 86 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Malocclusion, Angle Class II, half reached primary completion within 15 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 11 and three quarters within 22. This study's 19 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 86 studies reached it within 15 months; a quarter within 11 and three quarters within 22.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Feb 24, 2026
First posted
Mar 2, 2026
StartActual
May 6, 2023
Primary completionActual
Dec 22, 2024
CompletionActual
Mar 18, 2025
Last update
Mar 2, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 2, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07442825
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 2, 2026
Start date
May 6, 2023
Primary completion
Dec 22, 2024
Completion
Mar 18, 2025
Last update
Mar 2, 2026

Study contacts

Mudar Mohammad Mousa, DDS, MSc
principal investigator · Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus
Mohammad Younis Hajeer, DDS, MSc, PhD
study chair · Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Damascus, Damascus

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
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 Feb 2026. 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