Trial reportEuropean journal of oral sciences2026
Comparison of sagittal and vertical changes after en masse and two-step retraction using mini-implant anchorage: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European journal of oral sciences, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This parallel two-arm randomized trial assessed skeletal changes following en masse and two-step anterior retraction using mini-implants. Of 110 patients screened, 14 were excluded due to ineligibility or refusal, leaving 96 participants randomized equally into two groups (48 each). All received the assigned intervention. During follow-up, 16 participants were lost because of bracket debonding, mini-implant failure, or discontinuation, resulting in 80 subjects (40 per group) included in the final analysis. All patients were treated with pre-adjusted edgewise appliances. After alignment and leveling, bilateral mini-implants were inserted between the maxillary second premolars and first molars, followed by extraction of the maxillary first premolars. Retraction was carried out according to group allocation either en masse or two-step. Lateral cephalograms taken before treatment and after incisor retraction were used to evaluate skeletal changes. Data were expressed as mean and standard deviation, with Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U-tests applied for intra- and intergroup comparisons. Both methods produced significant sagittal and vertical changes. Although the two-step approach showed slightly greater maxillary retraction and ANB reduction, these differences likely related to baseline variation and biomechanics rather than true superiority. Vertical parameters increased in both groups, indicating posterior mandibular rotation, suggesting both techniques are equally effective.
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.