Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Comprehensive comparison of extraction space closure during canine retraction using nickel-titanium closed-coil springs versus elastomeric power chains during orthodontic treatment - a split-mouth randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06567730 (Comprehensive Comparison of Canine Retraction Using Nickel-titanium Closed-coil Springs Versus Elastomeric Power Chains During Orthodontic Treatment - A Split-mouth Randomized Controlled), which is not on this 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.
Comprehensive Comparison of Canine Retraction Using Nickel-titanium Closed-coil Springs Versus Elastomeric Power Chains During Orthodontic Treatment - A Split-mouth Randomized Controlled
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe two widely used methods for orthodontic tooth movement with sliding mechanics are elastomeric power chains (EPC) and nickel-titanium closed-coil springs (NCCS).
objectivesTo compare the rate of extraction space closure during canine retraction, degree of root resorption, dental plaque accumulation and gingival health using NCCS versus EPC in subjects undergoing first premolar extractions. TRIAL
designSingle-centered, prospective, split-mouth randomized controlled trial.
methodsFor canine retraction, NCCS and EPCs were randomly allocated to the right and left quadrants of both maxillary and mandibular arches in 46 subjects. Canine retraction, root resorption, plaque accumulation and gingival health were recorded at four points in time. Within groups, pairwise comparison and between-group comparisons were done using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis was employed to identify the factors significantly influencing the rate of extraction space closure during canine retraction and the extent of root resorption. BLINDING: The study investigators, patients recruited, and assessors were not blinded during the trial due to the visible nature of the orthodontic appliances used.
resultsNCCS exhibited faster rates in total canine retraction and during the T
conclusionNCCS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of extraction space closure and plaque accumulation compared to EPC. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to root resorption and gingival health. Furthermore, the degree of root resorption was found to increase significantly with the advancing age.
trial registrationRegistered at clinicaltrials.gov under the identifier NCT06567730 on 23rd August 2024.
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.