â??A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF CANINE RETRACTION(pulling the canine teeth located at the corners of the mouth in a backward direction ) USING MODIFIED MARCOTTE AND T-LOOP RETRACTION SPRING(names of devices used to pull back the canines) â??

â??A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF CANINE RETRACTION USING MODIFIED MARCOTTE AND T-LOOP RETRACTION SPRING- AN INTERVENTIONAL STUDY â?? - MMVsTLRS

Status

Recruiting

Phases

Phase 3

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2013/11/004129

Enrollment

Registered

2013-11-06

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2021-11-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: null- Orthodontic patients with bilateral first premolar extraction

Interventions

Intervention1: Marcotte spring: Canine retraction with Marcotte retractor springs Control Intervention1: T loop canine retractor: canine retraction with T loop canine retractor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1 Orthodontic patients with treatment plan involving bilateral extraction of upper first premolars with or without extraction of lower premolars in the age group of 13 to 20 years. 2 No missing teeth 3 willingness to participate in the study with written consent

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1 patients with ectopic placed canine 2 rotation of canine 3 any rotation of the anchor tooth namely first molar will be excluded

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Efficacy of Retraction of canineTimepoint: 4 months into treatment	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
anchor loss, rotation of molars and caninesTimepoint: 4 months into treatment	—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public Contactshijo davis

govt. dental college calicut

drshobhakumar@gmail.com919447067245

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026