Abstract
Data sources
Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Handsearching of references lists of included studies.
Study selection
Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective controlled clinical trials (pCCTs) of orthodontic patients treated with pre-adjusted fixed appliances, requiring space closure in the maxillary arch, comparing en masse retraction and two-step retraction. No initial restriction on language or date of publication. Retrospective studies were excluded.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers, using customised data extraction forms, and any disagreement resolved by third reviewer. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of RCTs. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of pCCTs. A random effects model was used in anticipation of heterogeneity.
Results
Eight studies (four RCTs; four pCCTs) involving a total of 334 patients were included. Two RCTs were considered to be at low risk of bias and two at high risk of bias. Three pCCTs were considered to be of high quality and one of low quality. Four studies contributed to the meta-analysis; one pCCT and three RCTs. There was a statistically significant difference in favour of en masse/miniscrew combination for anchorage preservation Std. Mean Difference (SMD) = 2.55 mm (95% CI; − 2.99 to − 2.11 and upper incisor retraction SMD = − 0.38 mm (95% CI; − 0.70 to − 0.06). Narrative synthesis suggests that en masse retraction requires less time than two-step retraction with no difference in the amount of apical root resorption.
Conclusions
En masse and two-step retraction are effective forms of space closure, with en masse being superior in anchorage preservation and incisor retraction if used in conjunction with miniscrews, when compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage. En masse treatment duration is less; however, no differences are noted in apical root resorption. Limited evidence suggested anchorage reinforcement with headgear produces similar results with both retraction methods.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
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; 2: 28–37. doi:10.4103/2278-0203. 110330.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK. E-mail: Mumenrizk@gmail.com
Rizk MZ, Mohammed H, Ismael O, Bearn DR. Effectiveness of en masse versus two-step retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Orthod 2017; 18: 41. DOI 10.1186/s40510-017-0196-7
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pervin, S., Rolland, S. & Taylor, G. En masse versus two-step retraction of the anterior segment. Evid Based Dent 19, 111–112 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401343
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401343
This article is cited by
-
Effect of low-level laser therapy on en masse retraction in females with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie (2024)
-
Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMC Oral Health (2020)
