Skip to content

Study in Children Comparing Three Types of Treatments for Tongue Tie Release to Improve Tongue Function

COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF SCISSORS, ELECTROCAUTERY AND DIODE LASER IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ANKYLOGLOSSIA IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS: RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL - NIL

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2025/12/098470
Enrollment
30
Registered
2025-12-04
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-12-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: Q381- Ankyloglossia Health Condition 2: O- Medical and Surgical

Interventions

Intervention1: Frenectomy: Surgical Techniques: Lingual frenectomy: Primary treatment for ankyloglossia. Methods: Electrocautery Intervention2: Frenectomy: Surgical Techniques: Lingual frenectomy: Pri

Sponsors

Dr M S Saravanakumar
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Healthy children between 6 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of tongue tie were included in the study. Assessment of tongue tie was performed using the Kotlow assessment, carried out with maximum mouth opening and the tip of the tongue touching the palatal papilla. The free tongue length was measured to the nearest millimetre and graded as follows, normal range of free tongue, greater than 16 mm; Class I, mild ankyloglossia, 12 to 16 mm; Class II, moderate ankyloglossia, 8 to 11 mm; Class III, severe ankyloglossia, 3 to 7 mm; and Class IV, complete ankyloglossia, less than 3 mm. The Quick Tongue Tie Assessment Tool was used for the measurement of Kotlow s free tongue length. Parents of the children who consented to participate in this study. Patients will be selected from Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital with complete case history and the patients based on the inclusion criteria will be recruited in this study

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Children with congenital or systemic abnormalities, those presenting with functional trismus, and those who had previously undergone maxillofacial surgery were excluded from the study. Children with special health care needs, oral cavity abnormalities under medical management, or those receiving medication were also excluded. In addition, patients who were not in good health on the day of the surgical procedure

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Pain was scored in the preoperative and postoperative periods using the Visual Analogue Scale. The quality of healing was assessed using the Healing Index proposed by Landry et al., immediately after the procedure and subsequently on the next day, fourteenth day, and 3rd month postoperative days. Heart rate and oxygen saturation were continuously monitored during the procedure using a pulse oximeter.Timepoint: Baseline Immediate postoperative 1 day postoperative 2 weeks postoperative 12 weeks postoperative

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Pain was scored in the preoperative & postoperative periods using the Visual Analogue Scale. The quality of healing was assessed using the Healing Index proposed by Landry et al., immediately after the procedure & subsequently on the next day, fourteenth day, & 3rd month postoperative days. Heart rate & oxygen saturation were continuously monitored during the procedure using a pulse oximeter.Timepoint: Baseline Immediate postoperative 1 day postoperative 2 weeks postoperative 12 weeks postoperative

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr M S Saravanakumar

Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital

rangeelampedo@gmail.com9952075441

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026