Literature DB >> 31259616

Which one closes extraction spaces faster: en masse retraction or two-step retraction? A randomized prospective clinical trial.

Patricia Pigato Schneider, Ki Beom Kim, André da Costa Monini, Ary Dos Santos-Pinto, Luiz Gonzaga Gandini.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the time to close extraction spaces between en masse (ER) and two-step retraction (TSR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patients with bimaxillary protrusion underwent treatment with extraction of four first premolars. All patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups: ER (n = 24) or TSR (n = 24). The main outcome was the time required to close spaces between ER and TSR; the closing time of spaces between females and males was a secondary outcome. The size of premolars was measured on the models and data were collected on clinical records at the following times: retraction start date (T1) and space closure completion date (T2). The total time to close the extraction spaces was calculated for each extracted premolar (T1 to T2). The Kaplan Meier method and the Log-Rank test were used to compare the groups.
RESULTS: The time to close extraction spaces showed significant differences between the ER and TSR groups. While ER took between 12.1 and 13.8 months, TSR took between 24.7 and 26.8 months. The TSR group showed a significant difference between sexes; male patients took 5.5 months longer than female patients for the extraction spaces to close.
CONCLUSIONS: TSR takes between 1.8 and 2.2 times longer than ER to close the extraction spaces and it took longer in males than females.

Entities:  

Keywords:  En masse retraction; Space closure; Treatment time; Two-step retraction

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31259616      PMCID: PMC8109172          DOI: 10.2319/101618-748.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  25 in total

1.  Root resorptions in upper first premolars after application of continuous torque moment. Intra-individual study.

Authors:  M A Casa; R M Faltin; K Faltin; F G Sander; V E Arana-Chavez
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Anthropometric analysis of mandible: an important step for sex determination.

Authors:  Aspalilah Alias; AbdelNasser Ibrahim; Siti Noorain Abu Bakar; Mohamed Swarhib Shafie; Srijit Das; Nurliza Abdullah; Helmee Mohammad Noor; Iman Yi Liao; Faridah Mohd Nor
Journal:  Clin Ter       Date:  2018 Sep-Oct

Review 3.  Factors affecting the duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review.

Authors:  Dimitrios Mavreas; Athanasios E Athanasiou
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Factors related to the rate of orthodontically induced tooth movement.

Authors:  Alexander Dudic; Catherine Giannopoulou; Stavros Kiliaridis
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques.

Authors:  Tian-Min Xu; Xiaoyun Zhang; Hee Soo Oh; Robert L Boyd; Edward L Korn; Sheldon Baumrind
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  The super-elastic Japanese NiTi alloy wire for use in orthodontics. Part III. Studies on the Japanese NiTi alloy coil springs.

Authors:  F Miura; M Mogi; Y Ohura; M Karibe
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Anatomical study of the maxillary tuberosity using cone beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Ester Manzanera; Paula Llorca; David Manzanera; Verónica García-Sanz; Vicente Sada; Vanessa Paredes-Gallardo
Journal:  Oral Radiol       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 1.852

8.  The duration of orthodontic treatment with and without extractions: a pilot study of five selected practices.

Authors:  P S Vig; J A Weintraub; C Brown; C J Kowalski
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients.

Authors:  Kirsty J Skidmore; Karen J Brook; W Murray Thomson; Winifred J Harding
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  En masse retraction versus two-step retraction of anterior teeth in extraction treatment of bimaxillary protrusion.

Authors:  Nayef H Felemban; Fahad F Al-Sulaimani; Zuhair A Murshid; Ali H Hassan
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2013-01
View more
  3 in total

1.  Efficacy and safety of piezocision in accelerating maxillary anterior teeth en-masse retraction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yichen Xu; Liming Yu; Xianqin Tong; Yuhui Wang; Yuanyuan Li; Jie Pan; Yanjing Yang; Yuehua Liu
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 2.728

2.  Effect of piezocision corticotomy on en-masse retraction.

Authors:  Abdulkarim A Hatrom; Khalid H Zawawi; Reem M Al-Ali; Hanadi M Sabban; Talal M Zahid; Ghassan A Al-Turki; Ali H Hassan
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Haonan Tian; Congman Xie; Min Lin; Hongmei Yang; Aishu Ren
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 2.757

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.