Loading search results
Comparison of the Effects of Power Bar Appliance Distalization Treatment Using Different Anchorage Methods and Low-Level Laser Therapy on Dentoalveolar Structures and Soft Tissues
Sponsor study identifier
interventional
57
1 country
1
Study Start
September 10, 2025
Actual (reported)Primary Completion
June 30, 2026
Actual (reported)Study Completion
June 30, 2026
Actual (reported)This study aimed to compare the dentoalveolar, skeletal, dental arch, transverse, and soft tissue effects of maxillary molar distalization performed with the Power Bar appliance using different mandibular anchorage methods, and to evaluate the additional effects of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic tooth movement. A total of 57 participants were evaluated in four groups according to the anchorage approach used during treatment: miniscrew anchorage (n=14), orthodontic button anchorage (n=14), lingual arch anchorage (n=14), and a control group (n=15). In the three active treatment groups, maxillary molar distalization was performed using the Power Bar appliance. The treatment groups differed primarily according to the mandibular anchorage method used to support the distalization mechanics. Low-level laser therapy was also evaluated within the active treatment groups using a split-mouth design. One side received low-level laser therapy, while the contralateral side did not receive laser application and served as an intra-individual comparison side. This design allowed the potential effect of laser therapy to be evaluated while reducing inter-individual variability. Clinical and orthodontic records obtained before treatment (T0) and after the distalization period (T1) were compared. Skeletal, dentoalveolar, dental, dental arch, transverse, and soft tissue changes were assessed to determine the effects of the different anchorage methods and to investigate whether low-level laser therapy provided an additional effect during Power Bar-assisted maxillary molar distalization.
Registry-reported information. Elapsed time and enrollment totals alone do not measure study progress or recruitment pace.
June 30, 2026
Actual (reported)Click on a node to explore related trials.
Some registry-reported names shown below are not yet linked in this graph.
Dates and qualifiers reported by the registry. Estimated dates do not confirm that a milestone has occurred.
September 10, 2025
Actual (reported)June 30, 2026
Actual (reported)June 30, 2026
Actual (reported)October 14, 2026
Actual (reported)October 22, 2026
Actual (reported)Change in Maxillary First Molar Distalization
The amount of distal movement of the maxillary first molars (U6) was assessed using digital dental models obtained before treatment (T0) and after completion of the distalization phase (T1). The change in molar position was measured in millimeters and compared among the miniscrew, orthodontic button, lingual arch, and control groups. In the active treatment groups, laser-treated and non-laser-treated sides were also compared according to the split-mouth design.
Baseline (before treatment) and completion of the distalization phase (mean 6.5 months after baseline).
Change in Maxillary Tooth Distalization
Baseline (before treatment) and completion of the distalization phase (mean 6.5 months after baseline).
Change in Maxillary Tooth Rotation
Baseline (before treatment) and completion of the distalization phase (mean 6.5 months after baseline).
Change in Maxillary Tooth Mesiodistal Tipping
Baseline (before treatment) and completion of the distalization phase (mean 6.5 months after baseline).
Change in Transverse Dental Measurements
Baseline (before treatment) and completion of the distalization phase (mean 6.5 months after baseline).
Change in Cephalometric Skeletal and Dentoalveolar Measurements
Baseline (before treatment) and completion of the distalization phase (mean 6.5 months after baseline).
Participants in this group underwent maxillary molar distalization using the Power Bar appliance with mandibular miniscrew anchorage. Low-level laser therapy was applied to one side using a split-mouth design, while the contralateral side served as the non-laser comparison side.
Participants in this group underwent maxillary molar distalization using the Power Bar appliance with mandibular orthodontic button anchorage. Low-level laser therapy was applied to one side using a split-mouth design, while the contralateral side served as the non-laser comparison side.
The Power Bar appliance was used for bilateral maxillary molar distalization in the active treatment groups. The appliance was used in combination with different mandibular anchorage methods, including miniscrew anchorage, orthodontic button anchorage, and lingual arch anchorage.
Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics
Kayseri, Kayseri, 38039, Turkey (Türkiye)
ibrahim yavuz, DDS, PhD
TC Erciyes University
57 participants (actual enrollment reported by the registry).
First Submitted
October 14, 2026
First Posted
October 22, 2026
Participants in this group underwent maxillary molar distalization using the Power Bar appliance with mandibular lingual arch anchorage. Low-level laser therapy was applied to one side using a split-mouth design, while the contralateral side served as the non-laser comparison side.
Participants in the control group did not receive Power Bar-assisted maxillary molar distalization, low-level laser therapy, or any of the study-specific anchorage interventions during the corresponding observation period. Their records were used as a comparison group to evaluate changes occurring without the study interventions.
Mandibular miniscrews were used as an anchorage method during Power Bar-assisted maxillary molar distalization to provide skeletal anchorage and reduce unwanted dental movements associated with the distalization mechanics.
Orthodontic buttons placed in the mandibular arch were used as the anchorage method during Power Bar-assisted maxillary molar distalization. The buttons provided dental anchorage for the interarch mechanics used during treatment.
A mandibular lingual arch was used as the anchorage method during Power Bar-assisted maxillary molar distalization. The lingual arch was used to reinforce mandibular dental anchorage during the distalization period.
Low-level laser therapy was applied during the maxillary molar distalization period using a split-mouth design. In each actively treated participant, one side received low-level laser therapy according to the study protocol, while the contralateral side did not receive laser application and served as the intra-individual comparison side.
Registry-reported names are shown in full. Names without a link have not yet been matched to a Syfrah profile.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Study Start
September 10, 2025
Actual (reported)Primary Completion
June 30, 2026
Actual (reported)Study Completion
June 30, 2026
Actual (reported)Last Updated
October 22, 2026
Record last verified: 2026-10
Individual participant data will not be shared because an individual-level data sharing plan was not established in the study protocol. Study results will be reported in aggregate form.
Download the complete ClinicalTrials.gov record imported by Syfrah, including fields not shown in this page. The registry may contain a newer revision.
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov.
JSON downloads include source attribution and retrieval details alongside the unchanged original record or the separately normalized values.
Source retrieved: