Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2019
Which one closes extraction spaces faster: en masse retraction or two-step retraction?
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of external apical root resorption in maxillary anterior teeth following en-masse versus two-step retraction: a 3D volumetric CBCT-based randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Effect of piezocision corticotomy on en-masse retraction.The Angle orthodontist · 2020Trial
- Article
- Mesiodistal angulation change of the maxillary lateral incisor in the extraction treatment by clear aligner- a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Biomechanical Simulation of Orthodontic En-Bloc Retraction Comparing Compound Technique and Sliding Mechanics Using a HOSEA Robotic Device.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of maxillary canine and molar movement during the first phase of extraction space closure: a multilevel analysis.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the time to close extraction spaces between en masse (ER) and two-step retraction (TSR). MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-eight patients with bimaxillary protrusion underwent treatment with extraction of four first premolars. All patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups: ER (n = 24) or TSR (n = 24). The main outcome was the time required to close spaces between ER and TSR; the closing time of spaces between females and males was a secondary outcome. The size of premolars was measured on the models and data were collected on clinical records at the following times: retraction start date (T1) and space closure completion date (T2). The total time to close the extraction spaces was calculated for each extracted premolar (T1 to T2). The Kaplan Meier method and the Log-Rank test were used to compare the groups.
resultsThe time to close extraction spaces showed significant differences between the ER and TSR groups. While ER took between 12.1 and 13.8 months, TSR took between 24.7 and 26.8 months. The TSR group showed a significant difference between sexes; male patients took 5.5 months longer than female patients for the extraction spaces to close.
conclusionsTSR takes between 1.8 and 2.2 times longer than ER to close the extraction spaces and it took longer in males than females.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.