ReviewCureus2026
Effectiveness of Different Acceleration Methods for the En Masse Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- Article
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
En masse retraction of the anterior teeth following first premolar extraction is a common orthodontic approach for correcting Class II malocclusion and bimaxillary protrusion. Several acceleration techniques have been proposed to reduce treatment duration, yet their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review evaluated randomized controlled trials published between January 1995 and May 2025 that investigated surgical, physical, mechanical, biochemical, hormonal, and pharmacological methods for accelerating en masse retraction in healthy orthodontic patients, with outcomes reported as the rate of retraction in millimetres per month. Six electronic databases and manual reference searches were screened, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Nine trials involving 347 participants (mean age 21.6±2.97 years) met the inclusion criteria. One study was rated as high risk of bias, four had some concerns, and the remainder were rated as low risk. Flapless corticotomy increased the retraction rate by an average of 0.24 mm/month compared with conventional treatment (moderate‑quality evidence), while its combination with low‑level laser therapy produced the greatest and most sustained acceleration, achieving a 43.8% higher rate than conventional protocols (high‑quality evidence). Corticoalveolar perforations increased the rate by 0.28 mm/month (low‑quality evidence), and low‑intensity electrical stimulation accelerated retraction by approximately 28% (low‑quality evidence). Platelet‑rich plasma injections showed no meaningful benefit. Overall, flapless corticotomy, particularly when combined with low‑level laser therapy, appears to be a promising method for accelerating en masse retraction, offering clinically relevant reductions in treatment duration. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the limited and heterogeneous evidence base, with most techniques supported by low‑to‑moderate quality evidence. The current data do not allow definitive conclusions regarding the superiority of one technique over another.
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.