ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Comparison of incisive canal remodeling and root resorption in extraction vs. non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction: a CBCT study.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the efficacy of sliding mechanisms on round versus rectangular archwires in canine retraction after first premolar extraction in class II malocclusion: a randomized clinical trial.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Trial
- Morphological evaluation of incisive canal between dentate and maxillary central incisor loss subjects in a Vietnamese population using cone beam computed tomography: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated three-dimensional changes in incisive canal (IC) morphology, root-IC proximity, and apical root resorption following fixed orthodontic retraction, comparing extraction and non-extraction protocols. Methods: CBCT scans of 86 patients (172 maxillary central incisors; mean age 22.3 ± 5.7 years) were analyzed before (T1) and immediately after treatment (T2). Participants were assigned to extraction (n = 42) or non-extraction (n = 44) groups. Linear measurements (IC width, cortical bone width, root-IC distance, U1 length/width, IC height) were recorded at three vertical levels (H1-H3). IC and U1 volumes and surface areas were quantified using standardized 3D segmentation. Continuous group comparisons were performed using patient-averaged data, whereas incisor-level categorical outcomes were analyzed using cluster-adjusted statistical models. Root-IC proximity patterns were evaluated using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), and apical root resorption and volumetric changes were assessed using Linear Mixed Models (LMM). Predictors of root-IC contact/invasion and predictors of root-IC distance reduction were examined using multivariable GEE and LMM, respectively. Multiplicity was controlled using Holm-Bonferroni correction. Results: IC width and cortical bone width decreased at several levels in both groups, more prominently in extraction cases (P < 0.05). Root-IC distance decreased in all patients, with an adjusted overall mean reduction of 1.33 mm (95% CI, 1.28-1.37). LMM showed no independent effect of extraction status on root-IC distance change (B = 0.08, P = 0.079). Each millimeter of U1 retraction produced an additional 0.40 mm reduction in root-IC distance (95% CI, 0.37-0.43; P < 0.001). GEE demonstrated that each millimeter of U1 movement increased the odds of root-IC contact or invasion by 1.76-fold (95% CI, 1.21-2.56; adjusted P = 0.030). Apical root resorption was significantly higher in teeth showing canal contact or invasion, with an average 0.38 mm greater shortening compared with separated roots (95% CI, 0.08-0.69). Conclusion: Changes in root-IC proximity during orthodontic retraction are driven primarily by the magnitude of tooth movement, not extraction status. Greater retraction increases both canal approximation and the likelihood of contact/invasion, which in turn intensifies apical root resorption. Pre-treatment CBCT assessment of IC morphology and careful force and torque control are essential to minimize biomechanical overload and reduce iatrogenic risk during orthodontic retraction.
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.