ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Physiol.
Sec. Craniofacial Biology and Dental Research
This article is part of the Research TopicRecent Advances in Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Bone Biology and RegenerationView all 4 articles
Comparison of Incisive Canal Remodeling and Root Resorption in Extraction Vs Non-Extraction Fixed Orthodontic Retraction: A CBCT Study
Provisionally accepted
- Zhenjiang Stomatology Hospital, Zhenjiang, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: This study evaluated three-dimensional changes in incisive canal (IC) morphology, root–IC proximity, and apical root resorption following fixed orthodontic retraction, comparing extraction and non-extraction protocols. Methods: CBCT scans of 86 patients (172 maxillary central incisors; mean age 22.3 ± 5.7 years) were analyzed before (T1) and immediately after treatment (T2). Participants were assigned to extraction (n = 42) or non-extraction (n = 44) groups. Linear measurements (IC width, cortical bone width, root–IC distance, U1 length/width, IC height) were recorded at three vertical levels (H1–H3). IC and U1 volumes and surface areas were quantified using standardized 3D segmentation. Continuous group comparisons were performed using patient-averaged data, whereas incisor-level categorical outcomes were analyzed using cluster-adjusted statistical models. Root–IC proximity patterns were evaluated using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), and apical root resorption and volumetric changes were assessed using Linear Mixed Models (LMM). Predictors of root–IC contact/invasion and predictors of root–IC distance reduction were examined using multivariable GEE and LMM, respectively. Multiplicity was controlled using Holm–Bonferroni correction. Results: IC width and cortical bone width decreased at several levels in both groups, more prominently in extraction cases (P<0.05). Root–IC distance decreased in all patients, with an adjusted overall mean reduction of 1.33 mm (95% CI, 1.28–1.37). LMM showed no independent effect of extraction status on root–IC distance change (B=0.08, P=0.079). Each millimeter of U1 retraction produced an additional 0.40 mm reduction in root–IC distance (95% CI, 0.37–0.43; P<0.001). GEE demonstrated that each millimeter of U1 movement increased the odds of root–IC contact or invasion by 1.76-fold (95% CI, 1.21–2.56; adjusted P=0.030). Apical root resorption was significantly higher in teeth showing canal contact or invasion, with an average 0.38 mm greater shortening compared 3 with separated roots (95% CI, 0.08–0.69). Conclusion: Changes in root–IC proximity during orthodontic retraction are driven primarily by the magnitude of tooth movement, not extraction status. Greater retraction increases both canal approximation and the likelihood of contact/invasion, which in turn intensifies apical root resorption. Pre-treatment CBCT assessment of IC morphology and careful force and torque control are essential to minimize biomechanical overload and reduce iatrogenic risk during orthodontic retraction.
Keywords: Bone Remodeling, CBCT, Incisive canal, Maxillary central incisors, Orthodontic retraction, Root Resorption
Received: 16 Oct 2025; Accepted: 02 Dec 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Al-Rokhami, Gao, Dang, Jiang, Zhang and SAKRAN. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: KARIM AHMED SAKRAN
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.