Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on the duration of orthodontic treatment

Abstract

We congratulate the authors for their investigation exploring the utility of pulsed electromagnetic field in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement (Bhad Patil WA, Karemore AA. Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field in reducing treatment time: a clinical investigation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Epub 2022 Jan 15). We seek to clarify a few aspects of the investigation that may add value to the current study and future studies on the subject. 1.As for the device used in the study, it was indeed inventive to use a modified watch circuit. The authors state that 2 wires were extending from the circuit placed near the experimental canine. This makes us curious about the exact purpose of the wires because electromagnetic fields do not require a medium to propagate. 1 Science – NASAAnatomy of an electromagnetic wave. https://science.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomyDate accessed: March 19, 2022 Google Scholar In addition, it would be helpful to know how the proximity of the wires was maintained in acrylic with the canine during the retraction process if the wires served a crucial purpose. 2.The reference points for measuring the amount and rate of tooth movement were the mesial cusp tips of the first molar and canine. However, physiological migration of molars in the mesial direction is a proven fact after the extraction of the maxillary first or second premolars for orthodontic purposes. 2 Teng F. Du F.Y. Chen H.Z. Jiang R.P. Xu T.M. Three-dimensional analysis of the physiologic drift of adjacent teeth following maxillary first premolar extractions. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 14549 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar , 3 Xu T.M. Concept of physiologic. in: Loss A. Xu T.M. Physiologic Anchorage Control. Springer, Cham, Germany2017: 61-70 Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar , 4 Creekmore T.D. Physiologic drift. J Clin Orthod. 1975; 9: 749-773 PubMed Google Scholar Therefore, using the molars as landmarks raises doubts about the accuracy of the measurement of the movement of the canines. 3.Similarly, the terms used to describe the assessment should more accurately be the amounts and rates of “extraction space closure” rather than “canine retraction.” 4.We would appreciate it if the authors could elaborate on the intraoral measurement of the pulsed electromagnetic field and validate the consistency of the said magnitude throughout the experiment duration to further consolidate the methodology. Similarly, a word on ensuring compliance of the subjects with the 8-hour nightly wear of the removable appliance would be very valuable. 5.Although the authors mentioned that a foil was used to protect the control site from exposure to the pulsed electromagnetic field, we are concerned about the intervention’s possible “carry-cross” effect. Carrying over from one randomized segment to another may introduce unknown biases. Within-subject correlations between randomized segments might be warranted. Depending on the extent of within-subject correlation, this may result in no gain in efficiency. For example, little efficiency is gained if within-patient correlation in response to treatment is low. 6.The study methodology suggests a randomized controlled split-mouth study design, although it was not presented as one. Efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field in reducing treatment time: A clinical investigationAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 161Issue 5PreviewThe long duration of orthodontic treatment is a major concern for the patient. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) in accelerating the orthodontic tooth movement, thus reducing treatment duration. Full-Text PDF Authors’ responseAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVol. 162Issue 1PreviewWe thank you for your interest and comments on our article. Full-Text PDF