Date of Completion


Embargo Period



Ravindra Nanda, Khalid Alams

Field of Study

Dental Science


Master of Dental Science

Open Access

Open Access



Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the duration of mandibular-crowding alleviation with piezotome-corticision orthodontics compared with conventional orthodontics and the accompanying effects on patient’s pain and satisfaction.

Materials and Methods: 14 subjects were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: adult patients 18 or older, single arch or double arch treatment, non-extraction treatment in the mandibular arch, presence of a full complement of dentition from mandibular first molar to first molar, no spaces in the mandibular arch, mandibular anterior irregularity index greater than 5, patient with healthy periodontium and attachment loss of up to 2mm, the amount of crowding should allow for bracket placement in the every tooth mesial to the mandibular second molar, and no therapeutic intervention planned with any intraoral or extraoral appliance. The patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: 1 group received piezotome-corticision procedure in conjunction with orthodontics and the other conventional orthodontics. Irregularity index was measured every 4-5 weeks in both groups. The time to alignment was calculated in days. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to measure the level of pain, ease, and satisfaction with the procedures.

Results: Overall, no difference in the time required to correct mandibular crowding with piezotome-corticision assisted and conventional orthodontics was observed. The experimental group had 1.6 times faster correction in only the first 4-5 weeks compared to the control group. There was no significant difference in pain levels immediately, 1 hour, 12 hours, and 7 days after the start of treatment between the two groups. The level of patient satisfaction and ease with the procedures were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion: Piezotome-corticision assisted orthodontics seems not to be more efficient in alleviating mandibular anterior crowding than conventional orthodontics. Slight increase in the rate of tooth movement was observed only during the first 4-5 weeks. The level of pain, ease and satisfaction with both procedures were not significantly different. There are additional aspects of treatment with corticision that need to be considered which include the necessity of the clinician’s familiarity with the technique and indications, the dictates of the patient’s malocclusion, and finally the cost of a procedure that appears to have limited effect in enhancing the rate of tooth movement.

Major Advisor

Flavio A. Uribe