ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop Segmental Arch: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction This study was designed to explore the differences between two frictionless mechanics for canine retraction i.e., dual force cuspid retractor and T-loop segmental arch. T-loop for canine retraction creates a biomechanical system to deliver a predetermined force and a relatively constant moment-to-force ratio whereas dual force cuspid retractor uses power arms on buccal as well as palatal aspects for canine retraction. Bodily tooth movement can be achieved by both methods, but in this study, our main focus was to reduce the canine retraction timing with better three-dimensional control. Method This split-mouth study was conducted on a total of 20 cuspids of ten patients (five male and five female). Where one side of the arch was selected for T-loop and the other side for dual force cuspid retractor, randomly. Inclusion criteria for this study were; no congenitally missing teeth (excluding third molar), class I or class II molar relationship, no previous history of orthodontic treatment, good oral periodontal status, patients in whom extraction of maxillary first premolar during treatment was indicated. Both groups were compared for the duration of canine retraction, anchorage loss; tipping, and rotation of cuspid and molar, individually, after retraction. Result The result of this study showed that the duration of canine retraction was significantly less in group one, i.e., dual force cuspid retractor 73.8 ± 12.38 days, than in group two, i.e., T-loop 109.4 ± 16.71 days. The anchorage loss in group one was 0.60 ± 0.61 mm and that in group two was 2.40 ± 0.87 mm. Also, the amount of tipping and rotation of the cuspid and molar individually was significantly lesser in group one than in group two. Conclusion In this study, the dual force cuspid retractor shortens the duration of canine retraction with better three-dimensional control and better anchorage preservation when compared to T-loop.
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.