Trial reportProgress in orthodontics2021
Three-dimensional assessment of two different canine retraction techniques: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.
Trial report in Progress in orthodontics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of segmental maxillary canine retraction using Burstone T-loops versus elastomeric chains: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2025Trial
- Review
- Space closure rate and anchorage control during maxillary anterior en-masse retraction using bidimensional versus conventional sliding mechanics.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Article
- Dimensional changes over time in stereolithographic models fabricated with a 3D printer.Odontology · 2025Article
- Temporary anchorage devices and the forces and effects on the dentition and surrounding structures during orthodontic treatment: a scoping review.European journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
- Comparative treatment outcomes after bilateral extractions of maxillary second molars or first premolars in patients with class II malocclusion: a retrospective study.Head & face medicine · 2023Article
- Methods of measuring distal canine movement and rotation- A review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this split-mouth trial was to compare power-arm sliding (PAS) and direct sliding (DS) canine retraction mechanics in terms of speed, rotation, angulation, and anchorage loss.
methodsThirty-six class II division 1 patients (20 females, 16 males; mean age, 16.94 ± 3.23) requiring upper first premolar extraction were included in the study. Miniscrews were used as anchorage units, and a retraction force of 150 gr was applied from the power arm on one side and from the bracket on the opposite side by using elastomeric chains. Randomization was achieved by block randomization with a 1:1 allocation ratio either to the right or the left with allocations concealed in opaque, sealed envelopes. Digital models were acquired using an intraoral scanner at the beginning of the retraction (T0), the first month (T1), the second month (T2), and the third month (T3). Before the scans, the archwire was removed, and custom metal jigs were inserted into the vertical slot of the canine brackets to evaluate the canine angulation. The digital models of each patient were separately superimposed with the local best-fit algorithm, and the retraction rate, angulation, rotation, and anchorage loss were measured. The digital measurements were performed using the Geomagic Control X software.
resultsThe DS technique's total retraction rate was higher than that of the PAS technique (2.09 and 1.57, respectively, p = .002). There was, however, no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of angulation, rotation, and anchorage loss. A negative correlation was observed between the retraction rate and age, but it was not statistically significant. No significant difference was observed between the retraction rates of female and male participants in either retraction technique.
conclusionsFor both orthodontists and patients, the DS technique is simpler and more convenient; thus, it is the preferred method for canine retraction.
trial registrationThe trial was not registered. PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before the trial commencement.
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.