ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2025
Clinical outcome of enmasse retraction as compared to two-step retraction in bimaxillary protrusion patients: A systematic review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Space closure is a challenging process that requires thorough understanding of biomechanics to avoid any undesirable tooth movements. In sliding mechanics; two-step retraction (TSR) and en-masse retraction (ER) are the two basic strategies for closing extraction spaces. No other systematic review has compared the magnitude of incisor retraction, pain, discomfort, amount of root shortening and time taken for space closure between the two techniques. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the degree of anchor loss, time taken for space closure, amount of root resorption, anterior incisor retraction, success rate, patient compliance and aesthetic changes between TSR and ER. Only RCTs were incorporated with inclusion criteria as patients between 10 to 40 years of age undergoing orthodontic treatment with class I and II malocclusions requiring first premolar extraction with absolute or maximum anchorage plan. Seven RCTs have been included in the qualitative synthesis of the review. ER using mini-screws showed a statistically significant difference in anchorage preservation, amount of incisor retraction and time taken for space closure. Anchorage loss between ER and TSR is not significant. However, the time taken for TSR is 1.8 to 2.2 times more than ER and the anchorage control is better provided by mini-screw assisted ER than conventional systems. Pain and discomfort experienced by the patients using mini-screws were initially higher and the amount of root resorption shows no vivid difference in both the techniques.
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.