Skip to content

A comparison between two methods of canine retraction

A comparison between two methods of canine retraction

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Early Phase 1
Study type
Interventional
Source
IRCT
Registry ID
IRCT201111308257N1
Enrollment
24
Registered
2012-01-19
Start date
2010-12-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2018-02-22

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

Conditions

Orthodontic problem. Fitting and adjustment of orthodontic device

Interventions

Intervention 1: Using the active tieback for canine retraction. Intervention 2: Using NiTi coil spring for canine retraction in contralateral arch.
Treatment - Devices
Using the active tieback for canine retraction
Using NiTi coil spring for canine retraction in contralateral arch

Sponsors

Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
13 Years to 17 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Inclusion criteria: being in good health condition; do not have previous surgery and not taking medication; not having clenching or grinding, a first premolar extraction in each quadrant (no other extractions), upper and lower pre adjusted edgewise appliance “Roth prescription (Dentarum)” and signing informed consent. Exclusion criteria: using any drug during the study; if a bracket was deboned and if the patient misses any visit.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria:

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Space closure. Timepoint: Monthly. Method of measurement: Milimeters.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Anchorage loss. Timepoint: Monthly. Method of measurement: Milimeters.

Countries

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Contacts

Public ContactMohammad Hossein Toude Zaeim

Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences

mmkarandish@gmail.com+98 917 337 6586

Outcome results

None listed

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