Hanin Nizar Khlef1, Mohammad Younis Hajeer2, Mowaffak A Ajaj1, Omar Heshmeh3, Nisreen Youssef3, Luai Mahaini1. 1. Department of Orthodontics, University of Damascus Dental School, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria. 2. Department of Orthodontics, University of Damascus Dental School, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria. Electronic address: myhajeer@gmail.com. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Damascus Dental School, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This single-centered, parallel-groups trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of traditional corticotomy vs flapless corticotomy in accelerating en-masse retraction. In addition, to assess the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables, as well as the external apical root resorption (EARR) of the maxillary anterior teeth. METHODS: Forty patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion aged >18 years at the beginning of treatment, requiring maxillary first premolar extractions, were randomly distributed into 2 groups (n = 20 each): 1 group was treated using traditional corticotomy, and the other group was treated with flapless corticotomy in en-masse retraction with anchorage based on miniscrews placed between maxillary second premolars and first molars bilaterally. Randomization was implemented with a computer-generated list of random numbers; allocation was concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. The study was single-blinded (outcomes' assessor). The primary outcome was the en-masse retraction duration. Secondary outcomes were the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes on lateral cephalometric and the EARR of maxillary anterior teeth on digital panoramic radiographs. RESULTS: The en-masse retraction duration in the flapless corticotomy group was longer than the traditional corticotomy group. The average retraction duration was 4.04 ± 1.10 months for the flapless corticotomy group and 3.75 ± 2.14 months for the traditional corticotomy group, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.81 to 1.39; P = 0.59). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding changes in several lateral cephalometric variables (eg, SNA angle [95% CI, -2.55° to 1.66°; P = 0.67], SN-U1 angle [95% CI, -1.70° to 1.32°; P = 0.80], and UL-E [95% CI: -1.33 to 1.00 mm; P = 0.78]) or in the amount of EARR in the maxillary anterior teeth (P = 0.31). The proportion of the observed EARR ranged from 1% to 6% of root length in both corticotomy groups. No serious harms were observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences between the flapless and traditional corticotomies were found in terms of the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables as well as in the amount of EARR. Corticotomy-assisted en-masse retraction led to improvements in skeletal structures and facial profile and resulted in sufficient retraction of maxillary anterior teeth, slight distal movement of maxillary first molars, and an intrusion movement for both anterior and posterior teeth. Both corticotomy techniques did not cause significant EARR. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03279042). PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before the trial commencement.
INTRODUCTION: This single-centered, parallel-groups trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of traditional corticotomy vs flapless corticotomy in accelerating en-masse retraction. In addition, to assess the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables, as well as the external apical root resorption (EARR) of the maxillary anterior teeth. METHODS: Forty patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion aged >18 years at the beginning of treatment, requiring maxillary first premolar extractions, were randomly distributed into 2 groups (n = 20 each): 1 group was treated using traditional corticotomy, and the other group was treated with flapless corticotomy in en-masse retraction with anchorage based on miniscrews placed between maxillary second premolars and first molars bilaterally. Randomization was implemented with a computer-generated list of random numbers; allocation was concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. The study was single-blinded (outcomes' assessor). The primary outcome was the en-masse retraction duration. Secondary outcomes were the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes on lateral cephalometric and the EARR of maxillary anterior teeth on digital panoramic radiographs. RESULTS: The en-masse retraction duration in the flapless corticotomy group was longer than the traditional corticotomy group. The average retraction duration was 4.04 ± 1.10 months for the flapless corticotomy group and 3.75 ± 2.14 months for the traditional corticotomy group, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.81 to 1.39; P = 0.59). No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding changes in several lateral cephalometric variables (eg, SNA angle [95% CI, -2.55° to 1.66°; P = 0.67], SN-U1 angle [95% CI, -1.70° to 1.32°; P = 0.80], and UL-E [95% CI: -1.33 to 1.00 mm; P = 0.78]) or in the amount of EARR in the maxillary anterior teeth (P = 0.31). The proportion of the observed EARR ranged from 1% to 6% of root length in both corticotomy groups. No serious harms were observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences between the flapless and traditional corticotomies were found in terms of the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables as well as in the amount of EARR. Corticotomy-assisted en-masse retraction led to improvements in skeletal structures and facial profile and resulted in sufficient retraction of maxillary anterior teeth, slight distal movement of maxillary first molars, and an intrusion movement for both anterior and posterior teeth. Both corticotomy techniques did not cause significant EARR. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03279042). PROTOCOL: The protocol was not published before the trial commencement.