Comparison Between Two Different Loops for Maxillary Canine Retraction

NCT07826182 | Not Yet Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: Canine Retraction with Loops
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 20
• Locations: 0 countries
• Sites: N/A

Brief Summary

The aim of the study is to evaluate and compare the clinical efficiency of two distinct loop mechanics for maxillary canine retraction, by comparing the rate of orthodontic tooth movement achieved, while assessing other dental parameters.

Conditions

Maxillary Canine Retraction

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Maxillary Canine Retraction

  At the baseline visit (T-0), a dental impression and a CBCT scan will be obtained. For intermediate follow-up visits at months 1 through 5 (T-1 to T-5), dental impressions only will be recorded. At the final 6-month visit (T-6), both a dental impression

Study Arms (2)

Poul Gjessing (PG) Loop

EXPERIMENTAL

orthodontic patient treated by Poul Gjessing (PG) spring for canine retraction.

Device: Poul Gjessing (PG) spring

Modified Marcotte Loop

EXPERIMENTAL

orthodontic patient treated by modified Marcotte spring for canine retraction.

Device: Modified Marcotte spring

Interventions

Poul Gjessing (PG) spring DEVICE

orthodontic patient treated by Poul Gjessing (PG) spring for canine retraction.

Poul Gjessing (PG) Loop

Modified Marcotte spring DEVICE

orthodontic patient treated by Modified Marcotte spring for canine retraction.

Modified Marcotte Loop

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 16 Years - 25 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• Adults aged 16-25 years.
• Class I or II div 1 malocclusion with moderate to severe crowding who are indicated for maxillary premolar extraction.
• Good oral hygiene and general health.
• Full eruption of maxillary permanent canines and second molars.

You may not qualify if:

• Systemic disease affecting bone remodeling eg.DM
• Previous extraction of permanent teeth.
• Periodontal disease or radiographic evidence of bone loss.
• Previous orthodontic treatment.
• Craniofacial anomalies or cleft lip and palate.
• Skeletal asymmetry.
• Orthodontic cases that could be treated with no indication for extraction
• Orthodontic cases that are indicated for extraction of any tooth other than maxillary first premolars.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Fayrouz Esam: lead

Central Study Contacts

Fayrouz Fayrouz Esam Ahmed Taher Mahmoud

CONTACT

0201016926903; fayrouzesam17@gmail.com

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Master's student, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Assuit branch

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: September 13, 2026
• First Posted: September 17, 2026
• Study Start: September 1, 2026
• Primary Completion (Estimated): December 1, 2028
• Study Completion (Estimated): December 1, 2029
• Last Updated: September 17, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-09

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share