<clinical_study>
  <!-- This xml conforms to an XML Schema at:
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/html/images/info/public.xsd -->
  <required_header>
    <download_date>ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023</download_date>
    <link_text>Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.</link_text>
    <url>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03261024</url>
  </required_header>
  <id_info>
    <org_study_id>Evidence based dentistry EBD</org_study_id>
    <nct_id>NCT03261024</nct_id>
  </id_info>
  <brief_title>Friction Versus Frictionless Mechanics During Maxillary En-masse Retraction in Adult Patients</brief_title>
  <official_title>Friction Versus Frictionless Mechanics During Maxillary En-masse Retraction in Adult Patients With Class I Bimaxillary Dentoalveolar Protrusion: A Randomized Clinical Trial</official_title>
  <sponsors>
    <lead_sponsor>
      <agency>Cairo University</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </lead_sponsor>
  </sponsors>
  <source>Cairo University</source>
  <oversight_info>
    <has_dmc>Yes</has_dmc>
    <is_fda_regulated_drug>No</is_fda_regulated_drug>
    <is_fda_regulated_device>No</is_fda_regulated_device>
  </oversight_info>
  <brief_summary>
    <textblock>
      This study is a Randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of two different&#xD;
      mechanics during maxillary en-masse retraction in adult patients. Patients will be randomly&#xD;
      divided into two groups:Friction and frictionless mechanics. Mini screws will be used in both&#xD;
      group to ensure maximum anchorage during retraction. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and&#xD;
      dental models will be taken for each patients pre and post -retraction. Following complete&#xD;
      anterior segment retraction, the rate and duration of retraction will be evaluated for both&#xD;
      groups as well as patient satisfaction with treatment. Changes in incisors inclination and&#xD;
      soft tissue as well as anchorage loss will be also assessed.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </brief_summary>
  <detailed_description>
    <textblock>
      Adult patients with Class I bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion will be recruited. All the&#xD;
      patients need extraction of upper first premolars followed by anterior segment retraction and&#xD;
      maximum anchorage.&#xD;
&#xD;
      The patients will be randomly allocated to one of two groups; either Friction or Frictionless&#xD;
      group. In friction group, Nickel Titanium coil spring will be used for retraction of anterior&#xD;
      segment while in frictionless group, T-loops will be used for retraction. All the patients&#xD;
      will receive two miniscrews , one on each side to achieve maximum anchorage during&#xD;
      retraction.&#xD;
&#xD;
      The patients will be seen on a monthly basis for follow up visit for activation of the&#xD;
      appliance to maintain constant force during the study. An impression will be taken for the&#xD;
      patients every visit, poured into stone for fabrication of dental models. The models will be&#xD;
      used to monitor the rate of retraction of anterior teeth.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Every patient will be asked for lateral cephalometric radiograph before and after complete&#xD;
      retraction. After data collection, two assessors will carry on the measurements blindly and&#xD;
      independently. Statistical analysis of the data will be done and the results will be compared&#xD;
      to evaluate the effectiveness of both techniques for en-masse retraction.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </detailed_description>
  <overall_status>Unknown status</overall_status>
  <last_known_status>Not yet recruiting</last_known_status>
  <start_date type="Anticipated">November 2017</start_date>
  <completion_date type="Anticipated">January 2019</completion_date>
  <primary_completion_date type="Anticipated">January 2019</primary_completion_date>
  <phase>N/A</phase>
  <study_type>Interventional</study_type>
  <has_expanded_access>No</has_expanded_access>
  <study_design_info>
    <allocation>Randomized</allocation>
    <intervention_model>Parallel Assignment</intervention_model>
    <primary_purpose>Treatment</primary_purpose>
    <masking>Single (Outcomes Assessor)</masking>
  </study_design_info>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Duration of retraction</measure>
    <time_frame>After complete retraction, average 9 months</time_frame>
    <description>months through clinical examination of the retracted anterior teeth</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Rate of retraction</measure>
    <time_frame>Average 9 months, recorded from the begin of retraction till the complete retraction of anterior teeth</time_frame>
    <description>millimeters through dental models taken for each patient monthly at the follow up visit</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Patient Satisfaction</measure>
    <time_frame>After complete retraction , average 9 months</time_frame>
    <description>Questionnaire will be filled by every patient at the end of the study regarding his experience and acceptance to the treatment, scale from 0 to 5 .</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in incisors inclination</measure>
    <time_frame>After complete retraction, average 9 months</time_frame>
    <description>Degree and millimeter through lateral cephalometric analysis</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Change in soft tissue profile</measure>
    <time_frame>After complete retraction, average 9 months</time_frame>
    <description>Degree and millimeter through lateral cephalometric analysis</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>molar anchorage loss</measure>
    <time_frame>After complete retraction, average 9 months</time_frame>
    <description>Degree and millimeter through lateral cephalometric analysis</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <number_of_arms>2</number_of_arms>
  <enrollment type="Anticipated">30</enrollment>
  <condition>En-masse Retraction , Class I Bimaxillary Protrusion</condition>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>Friction mechanics</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Active Comparator</arm_group_type>
    <description>Upper and lower arches will be bonded, leveled and aligned until reaching 0.019 x 0.025 st st archwires.&#xD;
Miniscrews will be inserted in the buccal alveolar bone between second premolars and first molars bilaterally.&#xD;
Miniscrews will be connected to the molar bands by rigid wire. Extraction of upper first premolars. Upper anterior teeth will be ligated together. Hook between upper laterals and canines will be fixed on the main archwire.&#xD;
Nickel Titanium coil spring ( friction mechanics of retraction)will be used for maxillary en-masse retraction by extending the spring from the hook to the molar bands.&#xD;
Re-activation of the coil spring will be done in the follow up visits to maintain a constant force through the study.</description>
  </arm_group>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>Frictionless mechanics</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Active Comparator</arm_group_type>
    <description>Upper and lower arches will be bonded, leveled and aligned until reaching 0.019 x 0.025 st st archwires.&#xD;
Miniscrews will be inserted in the buccal alveolar bone between second premolars and first molars bilaterally.&#xD;
Miniscrews will be connected to the molar bands by rigid wire. Extraction of upper first premolars. Upper anterior teeth will be ligated together. T-loops retraction arch ( frictionless mechanics of retraction)will be used for maxillary en-masse retraction. The wire will be cinched distal to the molar bands.&#xD;
Re-activation of the retraction loops will be done in the follow up visits to maintain a constant force through the study</description>
  </arm_group>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Device</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>Friction mechanics</intervention_name>
    <description>Nickel Titanium will be extended from the hook between the lateral incisors and canines to the first molar bands, to allow frictional en-masse retraction of anterior segment.</description>
    <arm_group_label>Friction mechanics</arm_group_label>
    <other_name>Nickel Titanium coil spring</other_name>
  </intervention>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Device</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>Frictionless mechanics</intervention_name>
    <description>T-loops retraction arch will be placed distal to the upper canines and cinched distal to the first molar bands, to allow frictionless en-masse retraction of anterior segment.</description>
    <arm_group_label>Frictionless mechanics</arm_group_label>
    <other_name>T-loops archwire</other_name>
  </intervention>
  <eligibility>
    <criteria>
      <textblock>
        Inclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          1. Male or female adult patients with age range 18-30 yrs old.&#xD;
&#xD;
          2. Class I bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion .&#xD;
&#xD;
          3. Full permanent dentition.&#xD;
&#xD;
          4. Good oral hygiene.&#xD;
&#xD;
          5. Maximum anchorage is required.&#xD;
&#xD;
          6. Healthy bone between first molars and second premolars is needed.&#xD;
&#xD;
        Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          1. Systemic disease.&#xD;
&#xD;
          2. Severe crowding.&#xD;
&#xD;
          3. Extracted or missing upper permanent tooth/teeth (except for third molars).&#xD;
&#xD;
          4. Any signs or symptoms or previous history of temporomandibular disorders (TMD).&#xD;
&#xD;
          5. Previous orthodontic treatment.&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </criteria>
    <gender>All</gender>
    <minimum_age>18 Years</minimum_age>
    <maximum_age>30 Years</maximum_age>
    <healthy_volunteers>No</healthy_volunteers>
  </eligibility>
  <overall_official>
    <last_name>Fatma A. Abd El Sayed, Professor</last_name>
    <role>Study Chair</role>
    <affiliation>Cairo University</affiliation>
  </overall_official>
  <overall_official>
    <last_name>Fady H. Fahim, lecturer</last_name>
    <role>Study Director</role>
    <affiliation>Cairo University</affiliation>
  </overall_official>
  <overall_contact>
    <last_name>Fady H. Fahim, Lecturer</last_name>
    <phone>+20-01006882595</phone>
    <email>fady.fahim@gmail.com</email>
  </overall_contact>
  <overall_contact_backup>
    <last_name>Fatma A. Abd El Sayed, Professor</last_name>
    <phone>+20-01005275779</phone>
    <email>fatmaabdou65@yahoo.com</email>
  </overall_contact_backup>
  <reference>
    <citation>Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod. 2005 May;75(3):333-9. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[333:BDPTAO]2.0.CO;2.</citation>
    <PMID>15898369</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2004 Oct;74(5):703-10. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)0742.0.CO;2.</citation>
    <PMID>15529508</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Park HS, Yoon DY, Park CS, Jeoung SH. Treatment effects and anchorage potential of sliding mechanics with titanium screws compared with the Tweed-Merrifield technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Apr;133(4):593-600. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.02.041.</citation>
    <PMID>18405824</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Dec;134(6):803-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025.</citation>
    <PMID>19061808</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Heo W, Nahm DS, Baek SH. En masse retraction and two-step retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult Class I women. A comparison of anchorage loss. Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):973-8. doi: 10.2319/111706-464.1.</citation>
    <PMID>18004930</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):275-83. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046. Epub 2013 Jun 20.</citation>
    <PMID>23787192</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Felemban NH, Al-Sulaimani FF, Murshid ZA, Hassan AH. En masse retraction versus two-step retraction of anterior teeth in extraction treatment of bimaxillary protrusion. J Orthod Sci. 2013 Jan;2(1):28-37. doi: 10.4103/2278-0203.110330.</citation>
    <PMID>24987640</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Ribeiro GL, Jacob HB. Understanding the basis of space closure in Orthodontics for a more efficient orthodontic treatment. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016 Mar-Apr;21(2):115-25. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.115-125.sar.</citation>
    <PMID>27275623</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Jee JH, Ahn HW, Seo KW, Kim SH, Kook YA, Chung KR, Nelson G. En-masse retraction with a preformed nickel-titanium and stainless steel archwire assembly and temporary skeletal anchorage devices without posterior bonding. Korean J Orthod. 2014 Sep;44(5):236-45. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.5.236. Epub 2014 Sep 25.</citation>
    <PMID>25309863</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jul;134(1):18-29.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025.</citation>
    <PMID>18617099</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Kulshrestha RS, Tandon R, Chandra P. Canine retraction: A systematic review of different methods used. J Orthod Sci. 2015 Jan-Mar;4(1):1-8. doi: 10.4103/2278-0203.149608.</citation>
    <PMID>25657985</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Baxmann M, McDonald F, Bourauel C, Jager A. Expectations, acceptance, and preferences regarding microimplant treatment in orthodontic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Sep;138(3):250.e1-250.e10; discussion 250-1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.03.023.</citation>
    <PMID>20816284</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Lee J, Miyazawa K, Tabuchi M, Sato T, Kawaguchi M, Goto S. Effectiveness of en-masse retraction using midpalatal miniscrews and a modified transpalatal arch: Treatment duration and dentoskeletal changes. Korean J Orthod. 2014 Mar;44(2):88-95. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.88. Epub 2014 Mar 19.</citation>
    <PMID>24696825</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Monga N, Kharbanda OP, Samrit V. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anchorage loss during en-masse retraction with indirectly loaded miniscrews in patients with bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Aug;150(2):274-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.02.014.</citation>
    <PMID>27476360</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hedayati Z, Shomali M. Maxillary anterior en masse retraction using different antero-posterior position of mini screw: a 3D finite element study. Prog Orthod. 2016 Dec;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s40510-016-0143-z. Epub 2016 Oct 3.</citation>
    <PMID>27667816</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Ziegler P, Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989 Feb;95(2):99-106. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0.</citation>
    <PMID>2916474</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Viecilli RF. Self-corrective T-loop design for differential space closure. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jan;129(1):48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.025. Erratum In: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Apr;129(4):457.</citation>
    <PMID>16443478</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Lee D, Heo G, El-Bialy T, Carey JP, Major PW, Romanyk DL. Initial forces experienced by the anterior and posterior teeth during dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored en masse retraction in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2017 Jul;87(4):549-555. doi: 10.2319/080916-616.1. Epub 2016 Nov 10.</citation>
    <PMID>27830931</PMID>
  </reference>
  <results_reference>
    <citation>Rhee JN, Chun YS, Row J. A comparison between friction and frictionless mechanics with a new typodont simulation system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Mar;119(3):292-9. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.112452.</citation>
    <PMID>11244423</PMID>
  </results_reference>
  <verification_date>August 2017</verification_date>
  <study_first_submitted>August 21, 2017</study_first_submitted>
  <study_first_submitted_qc>August 23, 2017</study_first_submitted_qc>
  <study_first_posted type="Actual">August 24, 2017</study_first_posted>
  <last_update_submitted>August 23, 2017</last_update_submitted>
  <last_update_submitted_qc>August 23, 2017</last_update_submitted_qc>
  <last_update_posted type="Actual">August 24, 2017</last_update_posted>
  <responsible_party>
    <responsible_party_type>Principal Investigator</responsible_party_type>
    <investigator_affiliation>Cairo University</investigator_affiliation>
    <investigator_full_name>Sally Magdi Riad</investigator_full_name>
    <investigator_title>Assistant lecturer- Orthodontic department</investigator_title>
  </responsible_party>
  <keyword>En-masse retraction , Class I bimaxillary protrusion</keyword>
  <intervention_browse>
    <!-- CAUTION:  The following MeSH terms are assigned with an imperfect algorithm            -->
    <mesh_term>Nickel</mesh_term>
  </intervention_browse>
  <patient_data>
    <sharing_ipd>Undecided</sharing_ipd>
    <ipd_description>Participant information won't be used outside the study except with written permission of the participant</ipd_description>
  </patient_data>
  <provided_document_section>
    <provided_document>
      <document_type>Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan</document_type>
      <document_has_protocol>Yes</document_has_protocol>
      <document_has_icf>No</document_has_icf>
      <document_has_sap>Yes</document_has_sap>
      <document_date>August 22, 2017</document_date>
      <document_url>https://ClinicalTrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/24/NCT03261024/Prot_SAP_000.pdf</document_url>
    </provided_document>
  </provided_document_section>
  <!-- Results have not yet been posted for this study                                          -->
</clinical_study>


download date: ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023
link text: Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.
url: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03261024
org study id: Evidence based dentistry EBD
nct id: NCT03261024
lead sponsor: 
has dmc: Yes
is fda regulated drug: No
is fda regulated device: No
This study is a Randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of two different
      mechanics during maxillary en-masse retraction in adult patients. Patients will be randomly
      divided into two groups:Friction and frictionless mechanics. Mini screws will be used in both
      group to ensure maximum anchorage during retraction. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and
      dental models will be taken for each patients pre and post -retraction. Following complete
      anterior segment retraction, the rate and duration of retraction will be evaluated for both
      groups as well as patient satisfaction with treatment. Changes in incisors inclination and
      soft tissue as well as anchorage loss will be also assessed.
Adult patients with Class I bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion will be recruited. All the
      patients need extraction of upper first premolars followed by anterior segment retraction and
      maximum anchorage.

      The patients will be randomly allocated to one of two groups; either Friction or Frictionless
      group. In friction group, Nickel Titanium coil spring will be used for retraction of anterior
      segment while in frictionless group, T-loops will be used for retraction. All the patients
      will receive two miniscrews , one on each side to achieve maximum anchorage during
      retraction.

      The patients will be seen on a monthly basis for follow up visit for activation of the
      appliance to maintain constant force during the study. An impression will be taken for the
      patients every visit, poured into stone for fabrication of dental models. The models will be
      used to monitor the rate of retraction of anterior teeth.

      Every patient will be asked for lateral cephalometric radiograph before and after complete
      retraction. After data collection, two assessors will carry on the measurements blindly and
      independently. Statistical analysis of the data will be done and the results will be compared
      to evaluate the effectiveness of both techniques for en-masse retraction.
allocation: Randomized
intervention model: Parallel Assignment
primary purpose: Treatment
masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)
measure: Duration of retraction
time frame: After complete retraction, average 9 months
description: months through clinical examination of the retracted anterior teeth
measure: Rate of retraction
time frame: Average 9 months, recorded from the begin of retraction till the complete retraction of anterior teeth
description: millimeters through dental models taken for each patient monthly at the follow up visit
measure: Patient Satisfaction
time frame: After complete retraction , average 9 months
description: Questionnaire will be filled by every patient at the end of the study regarding his experience and acceptance to the treatment, scale from 0 to 5 .
measure: Change in incisors inclination
time frame: After complete retraction, average 9 months
description: Degree and millimeter through lateral cephalometric analysis
measure: Change in soft tissue profile
time frame: After complete retraction, average 9 months
description: Degree and millimeter through lateral cephalometric analysis
measure: molar anchorage loss
time frame: After complete retraction, average 9 months
description: Degree and millimeter through lateral cephalometric analysis
arm group label: Friction mechanics
arm group type: Active Comparator
description: Upper and lower arches will be bonded, leveled and aligned until reaching 0.019 x 0.025 st st archwires.
Miniscrews will be inserted in the buccal alveolar bone between second premolars and first molars bilaterally.
Miniscrews will be connected to the molar bands by rigid wire. Extraction of upper first premolars. Upper anterior teeth will be ligated together. Hook between upper laterals and canines will be fixed on the main archwire.
Nickel Titanium coil spring ( friction mechanics of retraction)will be used for maxillary en-masse retraction by extending the spring from the hook to the molar bands.
Re-activation of the coil spring will be done in the follow up visits to maintain a constant force through the study.
arm group label: Frictionless mechanics
arm group type: Active Comparator
description: Upper and lower arches will be bonded, leveled and aligned until reaching 0.019 x 0.025 st st archwires.
Miniscrews will be inserted in the buccal alveolar bone between second premolars and first molars bilaterally.
Miniscrews will be connected to the molar bands by rigid wire. Extraction of upper first premolars. Upper anterior teeth will be ligated together. T-loops retraction arch ( frictionless mechanics of retraction)will be used for maxillary en-masse retraction. The wire will be cinched distal to the molar bands.
Re-activation of the retraction loops will be done in the follow up visits to maintain a constant force through the study
intervention type: Device
intervention name: Friction mechanics
description: Nickel Titanium will be extended from the hook between the lateral incisors and canines to the first molar bands, to allow frictional en-masse retraction of anterior segment.
arm group label: Friction mechanics
other name: Nickel Titanium coil spring
intervention type: Device
intervention name: Frictionless mechanics
description: T-loops retraction arch will be placed distal to the upper canines and cinched distal to the first molar bands, to allow frictionless en-masse retraction of anterior segment.
arm group label: Frictionless mechanics
other name: T-loops archwire
criteria: 
gender: All
minimum age: 18 Years
maximum age: 30 Years
healthy volunteers: No
last name: Fatma A. Abd El Sayed, Professor
role: Study Chair
affiliation: Cairo University
last name: Fady H. Fahim, lecturer
role: Study Director
affiliation: Cairo University
last name: Fady H. Fahim, Lecturer
phone: +20-01006882595
email: fady.fahim@gmail.com
last name: Fatma A. Abd El Sayed, Professor
phone: +20-01005275779
email: fatmaabdou65@yahoo.com
citation: Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod. 2005 May;75(3):333-9. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[333:BDPTAO]2.0.CO;2.
PMID: 15898369
citation: Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2004 Oct;74(5):703-10. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)0742.0.CO;2.
PMID: 15529508
citation: Park HS, Yoon DY, Park CS, Jeoung SH. Treatment effects and anchorage potential of sliding mechanics with titanium screws compared with the Tweed-Merrifield technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Apr;133(4):593-600. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.02.041.
PMID: 18405824
citation: Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Dec;134(6):803-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025.
PMID: 19061808
citation: Heo W, Nahm DS, Baek SH. En masse retraction and two-step retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult Class I women. A comparison of anchorage loss. Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):973-8. doi: 10.2319/111706-464.1.
PMID: 18004930
citation: Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):275-83. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046. Epub 2013 Jun 20.
PMID: 23787192
citation: Felemban NH, Al-Sulaimani FF, Murshid ZA, Hassan AH. En masse retraction versus two-step retraction of anterior teeth in extraction treatment of bimaxillary protrusion. J Orthod Sci. 2013 Jan;2(1):28-37. doi: 10.4103/2278-0203.110330.
PMID: 24987640
citation: Ribeiro GL, Jacob HB. Understanding the basis of space closure in Orthodontics for a more efficient orthodontic treatment. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016 Mar-Apr;21(2):115-25. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.115-125.sar.
PMID: 27275623
citation: Jee JH, Ahn HW, Seo KW, Kim SH, Kook YA, Chung KR, Nelson G. En-masse retraction with a preformed nickel-titanium and stainless steel archwire assembly and temporary skeletal anchorage devices without posterior bonding. Korean J Orthod. 2014 Sep;44(5):236-45. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.5.236. Epub 2014 Sep 25.
PMID: 25309863
citation: Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jul;134(1):18-29.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025.
PMID: 18617099
citation: Kulshrestha RS, Tandon R, Chandra P. Canine retraction: A systematic review of different methods used. J Orthod Sci. 2015 Jan-Mar;4(1):1-8. doi: 10.4103/2278-0203.149608.
PMID: 25657985
citation: Baxmann M, McDonald F, Bourauel C, Jager A. Expectations, acceptance, and preferences regarding microimplant treatment in orthodontic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Sep;138(3):250.e1-250.e10; discussion 250-1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.03.023.
PMID: 20816284
citation: Lee J, Miyazawa K, Tabuchi M, Sato T, Kawaguchi M, Goto S. Effectiveness of en-masse retraction using midpalatal miniscrews and a modified transpalatal arch: Treatment duration and dentoskeletal changes. Korean J Orthod. 2014 Mar;44(2):88-95. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.88. Epub 2014 Mar 19.
PMID: 24696825
citation: Monga N, Kharbanda OP, Samrit V. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anchorage loss during en-masse retraction with indirectly loaded miniscrews in patients with bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Aug;150(2):274-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.02.014.
PMID: 27476360
citation: Hedayati Z, Shomali M. Maxillary anterior en masse retraction using different antero-posterior position of mini screw: a 3D finite element study. Prog Orthod. 2016 Dec;17(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s40510-016-0143-z. Epub 2016 Oct 3.
PMID: 27667816
citation: Ziegler P, Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989 Feb;95(2):99-106. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0.
PMID: 2916474
citation: Viecilli RF. Self-corrective T-loop design for differential space closure. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jan;129(1):48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.025. Erratum In: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Apr;129(4):457.
PMID: 16443478
citation: Lee D, Heo G, El-Bialy T, Carey JP, Major PW, Romanyk DL. Initial forces experienced by the anterior and posterior teeth during dental-anchored or skeletal-anchored en masse retraction in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2017 Jul;87(4):549-555. doi: 10.2319/080916-616.1. Epub 2016 Nov 10.
PMID: 27830931
citation: Rhee JN, Chun YS, Row J. A comparison between friction and frictionless mechanics with a new typodont simulation system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Mar;119(3):292-9. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.112452.
PMID: 11244423
responsible party type: Principal Investigator
investigator affiliation: Cairo University
investigator full name: Sally Magdi Riad
investigator title: Assistant lecturer- Orthodontic department
mesh term: Nickel
sharing ipd: Undecided
ipd description: Participant information won't be used outside the study except with written permission of the participant
provided document: 