Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41798652
Effectiveness of Physical Methods in Accelerating Upper Canine Retraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Almasri Abdulmalek M H, Hajeer Mohammad Y, Othman Ahmad, et al. · Cureus · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.7759/cureus.104768
Findings
Population Patients aged 12-40 years with upper first premolar extraction and two-step retraction of upper anterior teeth with fixed appliances
5 findings
| Low-level laser therapy | Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration | Anchorage loss (mm) 2 to 7 months follow-up · Orthodontic clinics · Abd-El-Ghafour Omar 2017, Mistry 2020, Mohamed Hasan 2021 | MD -0.16 [-0.48, 0.17] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency 3 studies · 116 participants |
| Low-level laser therapy | Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration | Canine rotation (degrees) 2 to 7 months follow-up · Orthodontic clinics · Mistry 2020 and Mohamed Hasan 2021 | MD 1.48 [-2.48, 5.43] Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias 2 studies · 72 participants |
| Low-level laser therapy | Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) 2 to 7 months follow-up · Orthodontic clinics · Sensitivity analysis excluding three influential trials (7 trials) | MD 0.26 [0.13, 0.39] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias 7 studies · 242 participants |
| Low-level laser therapy | Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) 2 to 7 months follow-up · Orthodontic clinics · All 10 LLLT trials, before sensitivity analysis | MD 0.43 [0.12, 0.74] GRADE not reported 10 studies · 346 participants |
| Vibration (AcceleDent device, identical protocol) | Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) 2 to 7 months follow-up · Orthodontic clinics · Pavlin 2015 and Abd ElMotaleb 2024 | MD 0.36 [0.28, 0.45] Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias 2 studies · 77 participants |
Included primary studies 18
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abd-El-Ghafour Omar 2017 Thyroid hormone binding in rat mammary gland [proceedings]. PMID:201716 | 1977 | 1 other review | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month); Anchorage loss (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Bhad-Patil 2020 Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field in reducing treatment time: A clinical investigation DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.12.025 | 2022 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Doshi-Mehta 2012 Efficacy of low-intensity laser therapy in reducing treatment time and orthodontic pain: A clinical investigation DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.09.009 | 2012 | 1 other review | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Ekizer 2016 Light emitting diode mediated photobiomodulation therapy improves orthodontic tooth movement and miniscrew stability: A randomized… DOI:10.1002/lsm.22516 | 2016 | 1 other review | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Kharat 2023 Accelerated Canine Retraction by Using Mini Implant With Low-Intensity Laser Therapy. PMID:36819422 | 2023 | 1 other review | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Liao 2017 Computational and clinical investigation on the role of mechanical vibration on orthodontic tooth movement DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.06.012 | 2017 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mayama 2022 Effect of vibration on orthodontic tooth movement in a double blind prospective randomized controlled trial DOI:10.1038/s41598-022-05395-5 | 2022 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mistry 2020 The effects of a clinically feasible application of low-level laser therapy on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A triple-blind,… DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.12.005 | 2020 | 1 other review | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month); Canine rotation (degrees); Anchorage loss (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Mohamed Hasan 2021 [Immunogenicity and toxicity of soluble trichloroacetic acid precipitate from pertussis microbes and its fractions]. PMID:202117 | 1977 | 1 other review | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month); Canine rotation (degrees); Anchorage loss (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Üretürk 2017 The effect of low-level laser therapy on tooth movement during canine distalization DOI:10.1007/s10103-017-2159-0 | 2017 | 1 other review | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Varella 2018 Low-level laser therapy increases interleukin-1β in gingival crevicular fluid and enhances the rate of orthodontic tooth movement DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.01.012 | 2018 | 1 other review | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Abd ElMotaleb 2024 Effectiveness of low frequency vibration on the rate of canine retraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-58268-4 | 2024 | this review only | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Abd-El-Ghafour Omar 2017 Hospitals continue financial recovery. PMID:20178248 | 2010 | this review only | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Alqaisi 2024 Effectiveness of a low-intensity static magnetic field in accelerating upper canine retraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-04212-x | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Jivrajani 2020 Effect of Low Intensity Laser Therapy (LILT) on MMP-9 expression in gingival crevicular fluid and rate of orthodontic tooth movement in… DOI:10.1016/j.ortho.2020.01.008 | 2020 | this review only | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Kochar 2017 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Mohamed Hasan 2021 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
| Pavlin 2015 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month) | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients aged 12-40 years with malocclusion indicating upper first premolar extraction followed by two-step retraction | Orthodontic patients aged 14-34 years, mostly Class II malocclusion (322 participants in 16 trials) |
| Intervention | Physical acceleration methods: LLLT, vibration, electromagnetic fields | LLLT (n=10 trials), low-frequency vibration (n=4), electromagnetic fields (n=2) |
| Comparison | Similar group without the acceleration intervention | Fixed-appliance retraction without acceleration (control side or group) |
| Outcomes | Rate of upper canine retraction; canine rotation and tipping; root resorption; anchorage loss | Canine retraction rate (mm/month), tipping, rotation, anchorage loss, root resorption |
| Study designs | RCTs, split-mouth or parallel-group | RCTs published 2012-2024: 14 split-mouth, 2 parallel-group (n=16) |
| Timing | Not specified | 2 to 7 months of follow-up |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | No | No | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: No · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: No | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Low | Low | yes |