To evaluate the rate of canine retraction and pain perception following micro-osteoperforation – a split-mouth clinical study

Kshetrimayum Martina; Priyanka Sethi Kumar; Vaibhav Misra; Sonal Attri; Ashish Yadav; Rohan Jacob Sam; Rathin Kumar

doi:10.21307/aoj-2022-0038

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

To evaluate the rate of canine retraction and pain perception following micro-osteoperforation – a split-mouth clinical study

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Volume 38 (2022): Issue 2 (July 2022)

By: Kshetrimayum Martina, Priyanka Sethi Kumar, Vaibhav Misra, Sonal Attri, Ashish Yadav, Rohan Jacob Sam and Rathin Kumar

Open Access

|Jan 2023

Figures & Tables

(a): 3 MOPs on maxillaly 1st quadrant. (b) 2 MOPs on maxillary 1st quadrant.

Table I.

Intergroup comparison between 3MOPs and control group at three time intervals.

	GP	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	P value
T1	3 Mops	1.235	0.441	0.098	0.001
	Control	0.600	0.265	0.059
T2	3 Mops	1.050	0.256	0.057	0.001
	Control	0.410	0.224	0.050
T3	3 Mops	1.235	0.210	0.047	0.001
	Control	0.620	0.190	0.042

A: Intergroup comparison between 3MOPs and control group at three time interval, B: Intragroup comparison between three different time interval in 3MOPs and control group. C: Intergroup comparison between 2MOPs and control group at three time intervals. D: Intragroup comparison between three different time intervals in 2MOPs and control group, E: Intergroup comparison between 3 mops and 2 mops at different time intervals, F: Intragroup comparison of mean pain scores between different time intervals.

Table II.

Intragroup comparison between three different time intervals in 3MOPs and control group.

Groups	T1	T2	T3	P value
3 mops	1.23 ± 0.44	1.05 ± 0.25	1.23 ± 0.21	0.765
Control	0.60 ± 0.26	0.41 ± 0.22	0.62 ± 0.19	0.562

Table III.

Intergroup comparison between 2MOPs and control group at three time intervals.

	GP	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	P value
T1	2 Mops	1.020	0.223	0.050	0.438
	Control	0.960	0.153	0.034
T2	2 Mops	0.930	0.180	0.040	0.583
	Control	0.850	0.153	0.034
T3	2 Mops	0.910	0.144	0.032	0.832
	Control	0.885	0.122	0.027

Table IV.

Intragroup comparison between three different time intervals in 2MOPs and control group.

Groups	T1	T2	T3	P value
2 Mops	1.02 ± 0.22	0.93 ± 0.18	0.91 ± 0.14	0.743
Control	0.96 ± 0.15	0.85 ± 0.15	0.88 ± 0.12	0.864

Table V.

Intergroup comparison between 3 mops and 2 mops at different time intervals.

	GP	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	P value
T1	3 Mops	1.235	0.351	0.111	0.001
	2 Mops	1.020	0.223	0.050
T2	2 Mops	1.050	0.171	0.054	0.001
	3 Mops	0.930	0.180	0.040
T3	2 Mops	1.235	0.329	0.104	0.001
	3 Mops	0.910	0.144	0.032

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2022-0038 | Journal eISSN: 2207-7480 | Journal ISSN: 2207-7472

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 388 - 395

Submitted on: Jun 1, 2022

Accepted on: Oct 1, 2022

Published online: Jan 23, 2023

Published in print: Jan 1, 2022

Published by: Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Related subjects:

Medicine,

Basic medical science,

Basic medical science, other

© 2023 Kshetrimayum Martina, Priyanka Sethi Kumar, Vaibhav Misra, Sonal Attri, Ashish Yadav, Rohan Jacob Sam, Rathin Kumar, published by Australian Society of Orthodontists Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 38 (2022): Issue 2 (July 2022)

To evaluate the rate of canine retraction and pain perception following micro-osteoperforation – a split-mouth clinical study

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Table I.

Figure 3.

Table II.

Table III.

Table IV.

Table V.

Paradigm

My account