ArticleCureus2025
Root Resorption Following en Masse Retraction: A Prospective Assessment of Nickel-Titanium Closed-Coil Springs and Elastomeric Chains.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOrthodontic en masse retraction, a technique used to close spaces in the dental arch, can sometimes cause external apical root resorption (EARR), an unintended side effect. This study investigates how different force delivery methods, specifically nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed-coil (CC) springs and elastomeric chains (E-chains), affect root length in the anterior and posterior teeth of the maxillary jaw. Root length changes were evaluated before and after retraction using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging.
methodsA prospective, in vivo, parallel-group comparative study was conducted on 24 patients (aged >18 years) requiring bilateral maxillary first premolar extractions. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (n = 12) underwent en masse retraction using NiTi CC springs, and Group 2 (n = 12) used E-chains. Pre- and post-retraction CBCT scans were obtained to measure the root lengths of the maxillary incisors, canines, second premolars, and first molars. Standardized CBCT slice orientation and measurement protocols were used. Root length changes were measured as the distance from the cementoenamel junction to the root apex. Intra- and inter-examiner reliabilities were confirmed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC ≥ 0.90). Statistical analysis included paired and independent t-tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant root resorption after retraction. The NiTi CC spring group showed statistically significant root length reduction across all teeth (p = 0.001-0.017), whereas the E-chain group exhibited non-significant changes in specific roots, including the right lateral incisor and distobuccal roots of the first molars. Intergroup comparisons revealed significantly higher root resorption in the NiTi CC spring group for the anterior teeth (p = 0.001). Posterior root resorption was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.466).
conclusionNiTi CC springs caused significantly greater root resorption in the anterior maxillary teeth than the E-chains. Clinicians should consider these effects when selecting retraction methods to minimize EARR, especially in cases that require en masse retraction of anterior teeth.
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.