FindTrial
Sign In

Movement of upper back teeth while supporting the backward movement of front teeth

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ANCHORAGE LOSS BETWEEN ACTIVE TIE BACKS AND COIL SPRINGS DURING ENMASSE RETRACTION IN BIMAXILLARY PROTRUSION CASES

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2023/06/054163
Enrollment
16
Registered
2023-06-20
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-06-26

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K088- Other specified disorders of teethand supporting structures

Interventions

Intervention1: RETRACTION USING TIEBACK: USE OF ACTIVE TIEBACKS FOR RETRACTION IN BIMAXILLARY CASES FOR 6 MONTHS Intervention2: RETRACTION USING COIL SPRING: RETRACTION USING COIL SPRING IN BIMAXILLAR

Sponsors

DR SHRINGA AMRITHESHWARI K N
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Minimal or no crowding 2. First premolar extraction cases 3. Low or average anchorage

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Periodontally compromised cases. 2. Medically compromised patients 3. Severe crowded teeth 4. High anchorage cases 5. Missing molars

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
CLOSURE OF EXTRACTED SPACETimepoint: 1 MONTH AND 6 MONTH—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
LOSS OF ANCHORAGETimepoint: 0 MONTH, 6 MONTHS—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDR GOUTHAM B

COORG INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES

drgouthamreddy2000@gmail.com9900620536

Outcome results

None listed

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