NCT04532476

Brief Summary

It has been reported that 90% of the patients experience pain during orthodontic treat-ment. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of a double dose of photobio-modulation (PBM) therapy on pain perception in patients having fixed appliance treat-ment. Twenty-two patients were recruited to participate in this single-blinded, place-bo-controlled study. Four elastomeric separators were placed, mesially and distally to the upper first molar on each side. The right side of the upper jaw was treated with low-power diode laser, and the left side was a placebo, same treatment with laser switched off. Two doses of PBM therapy (660nm, 90mW) were delivered 24 hours apart. The par-ticipants filled out the questionnaire immediately after the placement of separators and before 1st laser treatment (TO), 12 hours (T1), 24 hours (T2), 2 days (T3) and 3 days after the 1st treatment (T4). At each evaluation period, the degree of pain was scored twice, one for each side.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
22

participants targeted

Target at below P25 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Mar 2020

Shorter than P25 for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

March 20, 2020

Completed
3 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

June 20, 2020

Completed
11 days until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

July 1, 2020

Completed
2 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

August 25, 2020

Completed
6 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

August 31, 2020

Completed
Last Updated

August 31, 2020

Status Verified

August 1, 2020

Enrollment Period

3 months

First QC Date

August 25, 2020

Last Update Submit

August 25, 2020

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Assesment of pain

    The pain was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS), which is a 100-mm-long hori-zontal line where one end corresponds to "no pain" and the other end indicates "worst pain possible." The participants filled out the questionnaire immediately after the placement of separators (TO) and before 1st laser treatment, 12 hours (T1), 24hours (T2) and just after 2nd laser treatment, 2 days (T3) and 3 days after the 1st treatment (T4) (Table 1). At each evalua-tion period, the degree of pain was scored twice, one for each side. Each patient was re-quired to indicate whether he/she had taken any analgesics during the recorded period.

    3 days

Study Arms (2)

Laser treated side

EXPERIMENTAL

Group of 22 participants whose mucose around right maxillary permanent molar was treated with laser.

Device: Low level laser therapy

Placebo side

PLACEBO COMPARATOR

Placebo side was LEFT side.It was treated the same way as right with the difference that the laser was switched off, but with the maintained sound signal, implying laser was working, so participants were blinded to the allocation of the group, only the operator knew whether the side is laser treated or placebo.

Device: Low level laser therapy

Interventions

Diode laser (Laser HF, Hager-Werken GmbH \& Co., Duisburg, Germany) was applied to the RIGHT side. Laser was set at PDT mode (660nm) acupuncture therapy. The power of the laser was set at 90 mW in intervals of 80 seconds as recommended by the manufacturer. The laser was applied perpendicular in contact with the mucosa on 1 point of the buccal and 1 point on the palatal side of the first molar approximately on the middle part of the root, with the 10mm distance from the laser to the mucosa. Each point was treated in 3 intervals, 80s each, in total 240s on vestibular and 240s on the palatal side per tooth. The treated surface was 1cm2. The power of the laser was 90mW, wavelength 660n, beam area 1 cm2, irradiance per target 0.09 W/cm2, during 240 seconds of treatment interval per point- 21.6J/cm2 of energy was delivered. The same laser treatment was performed the next day, as the pain was noted to be highest within 24 hours after the placement of separators.

Also known as: LLLT
Laser treated sidePlacebo side

Eligibility Criteria

Age12 Years - 19 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsChild (0-17), Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

  • patients aged between 12-19 years referred for orthodontic treatment, no previous orthodontic treatment, good general health , permanent dentition including second molars erupted, intact first maxillary permanent molars, good interproximal contacts on all maxillary first permanent molars, healty periodontal tissues ( gingival index=0, plaque index\<1, probing depths\<3mm, no peridontal attachment loss and no radiographic evidence of periodontal bone loss)

You may not qualify if:

  • gingivitis/ periodontitis
  • interproximal fillings
  • missing teeth
  • crowding or spacing in premolar or molar area
  • severe systemic disease
  • antibiotics or analgesics prescribed 15 days prior/during study

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

University Hospital Rijeka

Rijeka, 51000, Croatia

Location

MeSH Terms

Interventions

Low-Level Light Therapy

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Laser TherapyTherapeuticsPhototherapy

Study Officials

  • Senka Mestrovic, DDS, PhD

    University of Zagreb

    STUDY DIRECTOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
DOUBLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Masking Details
It was determined in advance that the right side of the upper jaw was treated with laser, and the left side was placebo.Placebo side was treated the same way with the difference that the laser was switched off, but with the maintained sound signal, implying laser was working, so that partici-pants were blinded to the allocation of the group, only the operator knew whether the side is laser treated or placebo.
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
SINGLE GROUP
Model Details: This is a single -blinded, placebo controlled, split-mouth study. The design was split-mouth to eliminate all components related to differences among subjects.
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Doctor of dental medicine, orthodontist specialist

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

August 25, 2020

First Posted

August 31, 2020

Study Start

March 20, 2020

Primary Completion

June 20, 2020

Study Completion

July 1, 2020

Last Updated

August 31, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-08

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations