Is It Possible to Achieve Favorable Accelerated Dental Changes with No Periodontal Complications When Retracting Upper Anterior Teeth Assisted by Flapless Corticotomy Compared to Traditional Corticotomy? A Two-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objectives: The objective of this trial was to evaluate the dental changes, periodontal health, and tooth vitality in mini-screw-supported en-masse retraction with two corticotomy-based acceleration techniques. Study Design. The sample included 38 adult patients presenting with class II division 1 malocclusion (three males, 35 females; age range between 18 and 30 years), needing the extraction of upper first premolars followed by en-masse retraction. The sample was divided randomly and equally into two groups. Randomization was carried out by random numbers generated by the computer with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio. The allocation concealment was carried out by sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. The interventions were traditional corticotomy (TC) versus flapless corticotomy (FC). Mini-screws were inserted between the upper second premolar and first molar, bilaterally. The primary outcome was evaluating dental changes. Secondary outcomes were the periodontal health and pulp vitality of the maxillary teeth. Mann-Whitney U test and two-sample t-test with Bonferroni correction were used to analyze the data. Results: The en-masse retraction rate in the first three months was higher in the TC group than the FC group (1.82, 1.66, and 1.39 mm/month vs 1.60, 1.42, and 1.22 mm/month, respectively) with statistically significant differences (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P=0.001, respectively). The en-masse retraction amount was greater in the TC group than the FC group (6.84 mm vs 6.18 mm, respectively) with statistically significant differences (P=0.002). There was an increase in the inter-canine and inter-molar widths with a minor distal movement of the upper first molar in the two groups, with no significant differences between them (P > 0.008). The values of gingival, papillary bleeding and plaque indices in the TC group were significantly greater than those in the FC group after performing the corticotomy (P < 0.001, P < 0.003, P=0.002, respectively). No gingival recession was found on any of the examined teeth in both groups. All teeth maintained their vitality at all measurement times in both groups. No severe harms were noticed in any group. Conclusions: Both traditional and flapless corticotomy techniques resulted in clinically similar rates of the en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth, with similar dental changes and no significant periodontal complications or tooth vitality loss. The minimally invasive flapless corticotomy appeared to be a good alternative to the more invasive traditional corticotomy. This trial is registered with https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (Identification code: NCT04847492), retrospectively registered.

The effectiveness of traditional corticotomy vs flapless corticotomy in miniscrew-supported en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion: A single-centered, randomized controlled clinical trial.

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.

Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes of En masse Retraction with Temporary Skeletal Anchorage Devices in Comparison with Two-step Retraction with Conventional Anchorage in Patients with Dentoalveolar Protrusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of en masse retraction with temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs) versus two-step retraction with conventional anchorage (CA) in terms of the skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue variables, as well as the duration of retraction or overall orthodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of PubMed and nine other major databases for prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) was carried out between January 1990 and April 2018. The bibliography in each identified article was checked out. In addition, manual searching was performed in the same time frame in five major orthodontic journals. Adult patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with extraction of maxillary premolars followed by an en masse retraction in the experimental group and two-step retraction of upper anterior teeth in the control group. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies for CCTs and Cochrane's risk of bias tool for RCTs were applied. RESULTS: Four articles (two RCTs and two CCTs) were included in this review and all articles were appropriate for the quantitative synthesis. There was no significant difference between the en masse retraction and two-step retraction groups in terms of SNA, SNB, ANB, and MP-SN angles. Using TSADs gave significantly better results in terms of posterior anchorage and incisors inclination, and greater anterior teeth retraction in comparison with CA (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -3.03 mm, P < 0.001; SMD = 0.74°, P = 0.003; SMD = -0.46 mm, P = 0.03, respectively). En masse/TSAD combination caused a significantly greater increase in nasolabial angle, higher decrease in facial convexity angle, and greater lower lip retraction in comparison with two-step/CA combination (weighted mean difference = 4.73°, P = 0.007; P = 0.0435; SMD = -0.95 mm, P = 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: There is weak-to-moderate evidence that using either en masse/TSAD combination or two-step/CA combination would lead to similar skeletal improvement. There is a very weak-to-moderate evidence that using TSADs with en masse retraction would cause better posterior anchorage and incisors inclination, and greater anterior teeth retraction than using CA with two-step retraction. There is weak-to-moderate evidence that using en masse/TSAD combination would lead to a better improvement in the facial profile. According to the quality of evidence, we confirm the need for more well-conducted RCTs in the en masse retraction field.