Effect of Light Emitting Diodes (LED) with
430-480 nm Wavelength Upon Tooth Movement

Chalumporn Ubolviroj; Chulaluk Komoltri; Somchai Manopattanakul; Nita Viwattanatipa

doi:10.26717/BJSTR.2018.10.001947

Research ArticleOpen Access

Effect of Light Emitting Diodes (LED) with 430-480 nm Wavelength Upon Tooth Movement

Volume 10 - Issue 3

**Chalumporn Ubolviroj¹, Chulaluk Komoltri², Somchai Manopattanakul³ and Nita Viwattanatipa*⁴**

Author Information Open or Close
- ¹Orthodontic Department, Mahidol University, Thailand
- ²Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand
- ³Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Mahidol University, Thailand
- ⁴ Department of Orthodontics, Mahidol University, Thailand

Received: October 16, 2018; Published: October 25, 2018

DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2018.10.001947

Full Text PDF

To view the Full Article Peer-reviewed Article PDF

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether light emitting diodes (LED) curing light had any effect upon orthodontic tooth movement.

Material and Methods: Randomization, split mouth technique and double-blind trial was performed in 20 adults, Angle’s Class I or II, patients. Canine retraction into upper first premolar extraction using Niti coil spring was performed. Either LED (3M Elipar S10 with intensity of 1200 mW/cm² wavelength range 430-480 nm) was applied every 3 weeks or placebo on control side. Three digital panorex were taken with calibrated wire at the start of retraction and after retraction every 9 weeks interval. Measurement of canine tooth movement was done by synapse program on digital panorex and rate of canine tooth movement was gathered at the end of phase 1, phase 2 and total time (18 weeks). Rate of tooth movement, canine angulation changes and score of pain level were contrasted using matched paired T test phase 1.

Results: Average rate of canine tooth movement for LED VS. control group; in phase I was 0.32 and 0.33 mm/week, in phase 2 was 0.25 and 0.22 mm/week, and in total time was 0.28 and 0.27 mm/week respectively. In all 3 phases there were no statistical difference in the rate of canine movement or canine angulation change between the LED and control groups. VAS pain score revealed that patients were more sensitive on the LED side than control side.

Conclusion: LED light with 430-480 nm wavelength could not accelerate the rate of canine tooth movement into extraction site.

Keywords : Randomized Clinical Trial; Light Emitting Diodes; Led Curing Light; Accelerated Tooth Movement; Orthodontics