Clinical outcome of enmasse retraction as compared to two-step retraction in bimaxillary protrusion patients: A systematic review.

IF 2.3 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Arunima Chakraborty, Sumita Mishra, Smruti Bhusan Nanda
{"title":"Clinical outcome of enmasse retraction as compared to two-step retraction in bimaxillary protrusion patients: A systematic review.","authors":"Arunima Chakraborty, Sumita Mishra, Smruti Bhusan Nanda","doi":"10.1007/s44445-025-00055-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Space closure is a challenging process that requires thorough understanding of biomechanics to avoid any undesirable tooth movements. In sliding mechanics; two-step retraction (TSR) and en-masse retraction (ER) are the two basic strategies for closing extraction spaces. No other systematic review has compared the magnitude of incisor retraction, pain, discomfort, amount of root shortening and time taken for space closure between the two techniques. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the degree of anchor loss, time taken for space closure, amount of root resorption, anterior incisor retraction, success rate, patient compliance and aesthetic changes between TSR and ER. Only RCTs were incorporated with inclusion criteria as patients between 10 to 40 years of age undergoing orthodontic treatment with class I and II malocclusions requiring first premolar extraction with absolute or maximum anchorage plan. Seven RCTs have been included in the qualitative synthesis of the review. ER using mini-screws showed a statistically significant difference in anchorage preservation, amount of incisor retraction and time taken for space closure. Anchorage loss between ER and TSR is not significant. However, the time taken for TSR is 1.8 to 2.2 times more than ER and the anchorage control is better provided by mini-screw assisted ER than conventional systems. Pain and discomfort experienced by the patients using mini-screws were initially higher and the amount of root resorption shows no vivid difference in both the techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":47246,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Dental Journal","volume":"37 7-9","pages":"48"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12474778/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44445-025-00055-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Space closure is a challenging process that requires thorough understanding of biomechanics to avoid any undesirable tooth movements. In sliding mechanics; two-step retraction (TSR) and en-masse retraction (ER) are the two basic strategies for closing extraction spaces. No other systematic review has compared the magnitude of incisor retraction, pain, discomfort, amount of root shortening and time taken for space closure between the two techniques. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the degree of anchor loss, time taken for space closure, amount of root resorption, anterior incisor retraction, success rate, patient compliance and aesthetic changes between TSR and ER. Only RCTs were incorporated with inclusion criteria as patients between 10 to 40 years of age undergoing orthodontic treatment with class I and II malocclusions requiring first premolar extraction with absolute or maximum anchorage plan. Seven RCTs have been included in the qualitative synthesis of the review. ER using mini-screws showed a statistically significant difference in anchorage preservation, amount of incisor retraction and time taken for space closure. Anchorage loss between ER and TSR is not significant. However, the time taken for TSR is 1.8 to 2.2 times more than ER and the anchorage control is better provided by mini-screw assisted ER than conventional systems. Pain and discomfort experienced by the patients using mini-screws were initially higher and the amount of root resorption shows no vivid difference in both the techniques.

双颌前突患者牙套牵开与两步牵开的临床效果比较:一项系统综述。
间隙闭合是一个具有挑战性的过程,需要彻底了解生物力学,以避免任何不希望的牙齿运动。在滑动力学中;两步内收(TSR)和大规模内收(ER)是关闭拔牙空间的两种基本策略。没有其他的系统综述比较了两种技术之间切牙后缩的大小,疼痛,不适,根缩短的数量和空间关闭所需的时间。本系统综述的目的是评估和比较TSR和ER之间的锚定丢失程度、空间关闭时间、牙根吸收量、前切牙内收、成功率、患者依从性和美观变化。只有rct纳入纳入标准的患者年龄在10至40岁,接受正畸治疗的I类和II类错颌需要拔第一前磨牙绝对或最大支抗计划。本综述的定性综合纳入了7项随机对照试验。使用微型螺钉的内窥镜在支抗保存、切牙内缩量和空间关闭时间上有统计学意义。锚固损失在ER和TSR之间不显著。然而,TSR所需的时间是ER的1.8 ~ 2.2倍,并且微型螺钉辅助ER比传统系统提供更好的锚固控制。使用微型螺钉的患者最初经历的疼痛和不适更高,两种技术的牙根吸收量没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Saudi Dental Journal
Saudi Dental Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: Saudi Dental Journal is an English language, peer-reviewed scholarly publication in the area of dentistry. Saudi Dental Journal publishes original research and reviews on, but not limited to: • dental disease • clinical trials • dental equipment • new and experimental techniques • epidemiology and oral health • restorative dentistry • periodontology • endodontology • prosthodontics • paediatric dentistry • orthodontics and dental education Saudi Dental Journal is the official publication of the Saudi Dental Society and is published by King Saud University in collaboration with Elsevier and is edited by an international group of eminent researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信