Background: Incisor retraction is often a crucial phase in ongoing orthodontic treatment, with significant implications for alveolar remodeling mechanisms. There are two prevailing theories which seek to explain this. According to the first, teeth move with the bone, while according to the second, teeth move within the bone. This systematic review seeks to assess morphometric changes in the maxillary alveolar process resulting from incisor retraction following premolar extraction and to evaluate the potential for bone remodeling associated with orthodontic movement. Methods: The study was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The databases were searched using the following keywords: “Bone remodeling and retraction of incisors”, “Alveolar bone and incisor retraction”, “Bone thickness and incisor retraction”, and “Bone changes and orthodontic treatment”. Search filters were utilized to identify relevant papers and articles written in English and published during the last 10 years. Based on the information provided in their abstracts, papers and articles were selected according to the following criteria: randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical prospective trials (CCTs), and retrospective studies. Articles unrelated to the study’s scope or failing to meet inclusion criteria were excluded. These generally comprised individual case reports, case series reports, literature reviews, experimental studies, studies with limited data (including conference abstracts and journal writings), studies involving an unrepresentative group of patients (less than 10 patients), studies concerning patients with syndromes, and animal experiments. The remaining articles which were deemed relevant underwent comprehensive reference review and such journals as the American Journal of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics, International Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, and Angle Orthodontist were manually searched. Results: Seven articles meeting the inclusion criteria articles were selected for final evaluation, with a total of 284 participants, including 233 women and 51 men. During the analysis of the results included in the publications, a lack of homogeneity was observed, rendering a reliable statistical analysis and heterogeneity assessment unobtainable. Noteworthy disparities in methodologies and measurements posed a risk of drawing inappropriate conclusions. Consequently, emphasis was placed on qualitative analysis, emphasizing the need for standardization in future studies of a similar nature, to enable valid and comparable analyses. Conclusions: The research findings incorporated in this review demonstrate that significant bone loss occurs because of incisor retraction, which diminishes distance between the bone surface and the root surface on the palatal aspect. The magnitude of this change may vary, contingent upon both the extent of incisor displacement and alterations in their inclination, thereby affecting the positioning of the root tips. This change is significantly higher in adults than in growing adolescents. The rationale behind this assertion lies in the widely recognized phenomenon of declining cellular activity with advancing age. The decrease in the speed and intensity of cellular changes may explain the diminished capacity for remodeling as patient age increases. There is ongoing discourse regarding alterations in the volume of bone on the labial aspect of the alveolar process. Further research is necessary to measure whether bone remodeling during orthodontic movement is contingent upon other factors, such as the speed and biomechanics of retraction, the level of applied orthodontic force, and the patient age. Full article

There are various techniques and designs for springs used in orthodontic treatment, including frictionless methods for closing spaces. However, there is limited explicit evidence to support the superiority of one method over another. This review aims to investigate the available evidence and highlight the advantages of these different methods. This review contained six papers, and information such as study design, spring design, applied force systems, variables studied, follow-up period, and records were extracted. All of the studies focused on canine retraction with the Ladanyi spring showing the highest rate of movement (1.8 mm per month) among all springs for upper canine retraction. The Gjessing and T-loop springs outperformed the Reverse Closing Loop and Ricketts spring, respectively, substantially. In terms of tip control, the T-loop spring showed a clear advantage over the modified Marcotte spring with a difference of 1.2° vs. 6.6° per 3 months. Additionally, it was observed that the Reverse Closing Loop caused a significant loss of anchorage during canine retraction with a medial movement of 2.4 mm. When comparing wire types, no significant differences were found between TMA and Nitinol, while stainless steel was found to be less effective in terms of movement rate and tip control. However, the results indicated that there was no clear evidence that one specific technique was definitively preferable to another; therefore, there is an urgent need for more studies with proper study designs to produce more robust conclusions. Full article