Evaluation of Mini and Macro-esthetics Following En- Masse Retraction Versus Two Step Retraction

Not Applicable

• Conditions: Bimaxillary Protrusion
• Interventions: Procedure: En-masse retraction; Procedure: Two step Retraction

• Registration Number: NCT05150665
• Lead Sponsor: Future University in Egypt

Brief Summary

There's a scarcity in literature concerning mini-esthetics specially maxillary gingival display changes following en-masse retraction and two-step retraction. The purpose of this study is to determine, In orthodontic patients with maxillary protrusion, which technique of retraction will result in better esthetics upon smiling following en-masse retraction or two step retraction mechanics.

Detailed Description

This study will be conducted in order to evaluate which technique of retraction will provide better outcome regarding mini and macro esthetics. In terms of mini esthetics, posed smiles will be analyzed to evaluate maxillary gingival display, as well as the analysis of smile arc, buccal corridor, inter-labial gap. In terms of macro esthetics, frontal and profile poses will be assessed to evaluate the nasolabial angle, mentolabial angle and upper and lower lip protrusion/ E- plane.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2020-10-29
• Status Verified: 2021-11
• Study First Submitted: 2021-11-26
• Study First Submitted QC: 2021-11-26
• Last Update Submitted: 2021-11-26
• Study First Posted: 2021-12-09
• Last Update Posted: 2021-12-09
• Primary Completion: 2021-12-28
• Study Completion: 2021-12-28

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: UNKNOWN
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 30

Inclusion Criteria

• Adults and Adolescent patients (both genders)
• Age range (16-24)
• Patients with maxillary protrusion requiring first premolars extraction (Bimaxillary Protrusion or Class II division 1 cases).
• Patients with fully erupted permanent teeth (not necessarily including the third molar).
• Cases requiring maximum anchorage during retraction.
• Good general and oral health

Exclusion Criteria

• Patients suffering from any neural disorders or systemic diseases interfering with tooth movement.
• Patients with soft tissue problems such as cleft-palate patients
• Patients with extracted or missing permanent teeth. (except for third molars).
• Patients with badly decayed teeth.
• Patients with any parafunctional habits (i.e. Bruxism, tongue thrusting, mouth breathing, etc....).
• Patients with previous orthodontic treatment.

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
En-Masse Retraction	En-masse retraction	Six anterior teeth (en-Masse) retracted using a crimpable hook distal to the upper lateral incisor and a power chain
two step retraction	Two step Retraction	Six anterior teeth are retracted by two step technique by canine retraction followed by four anterior teeth retraction using a crimpable hook distal to the upper lateral incisor and a power chain

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Mini-esthetics including	From pre to post retraction (an average of 6 - 8 months)]	Evaluation of (maxillary gingival display, Smile arc, buccal corridor) from social smile photograph Evaluation of (inter-labial gap) from At Rest photograph All primary outcome characteristics will be measured before and after retraction (measured Linear/ horizontal/ vertical in millimeters) by Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 software.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Macro-esthetics evaluation of profile photograph including	upto 6 months from the start of orthodontic treatment.	1. Nasolabial angle. 2. Mentolabial angle. 3. Incisors Inclination (Angular measurement in degrees). 4. Upper lip protrusion/ E- plane. 5. Lower lip protrusion/ E- plane. (Linear measurement in millimeters.) Cephalometric radiographs and Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 software

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Future University In Egypt; 🇪🇬 Cairo, Egypt