[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-410098-105":59,"doc-detail-410098-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","comparison-of-incisive-canal-remodeling-and-root-resorption-in-extraction-vs-non-extraction-fixed-orthodontic-retraction-a-cbct-study","Comparison of incisive canal remodeling and root resorption in extraction vs. non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction - a CBCT study","","A CBCT-based original research study evaluated three-dimensional changes in incisive canal morphology, root–IC proximity, and apical root resorption following fixed orthodontic retraction. Eighty-six participants were compared between extraction and non-extraction protocols, using linear measurements across vertical levels and 3D segmentation for IC and U1 volumes and surface areas. Statistical models examined group differences, proximity patterns, predictors of root–IC contact/invasion, and resorption intensity. Results indicated proximity changes were mainly driven by tooth-movement magnitude rather than extraction status, linking greater retraction to higher canal approximation and intensified apical root resorption.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/comparison-of-incisive-canal-remodeling-and-root-resorption-in-extraction-vs-non-extraction-fixed-orthodontic-retraction-a-cbct-study/410098/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/comparison-of-incisive-canal-remodeling-and-root-resorption-in-extraction-vs-non-extraction-fixed-orthodontic-retraction-a-cbct-study/410098.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Genevieve","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-07","2026-09-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What clinical question does this study address?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The study compares how extraction versus non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction affects incisive canal remodeling, root–IC proximity, and apical root resorption, using CBCT.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How was the study designed and analyzed?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"CBCT scans from 86 patients were analyzed at baseline (T1) and after treatment (T2). Measurements included linear dimensions at multiple vertical levels, and volumes/surface areas via standardized 3D segmentation, with statistical models assessing group effects and proximity patterns.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What were the key findings regarding root–IC proximity and extraction status?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Root–IC distance decreased in all patients, but extraction status showed no independent effect on the change in root–IC distance. Instead, the magnitude of tooth movement increased the likelihood of canal contact or invasion and was associated with greater apical root resorption.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},410098,1790794042,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},1374391974585,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 18 December 2025 DOI 10.3389/fphys.2025.1726454  \nOPEN ACCESS  \nEDITED BY  \nYongbo Lu,  \nTexas A&M University School of Dentistry, United States  \nREVIEWED BY  \nZhang Xiaoqi,  \nSichuan University, China Freny Karjodkar,  \nNair Hospital Dental College, India  \n*CORRESPONDENCE  \nKarim Ahmed Sakran,  \n [kimosak89@gmail.com](kimosak89@gmail.com)  \nRECEIVED 16 October 2025  \nREVISED 28 November 2025  \nACCEPTED 02 December 2025  \nPUBLISHED 18 December 2025  \nCITATION  \nAl-Rokhami RK, Gao D, Dang X, Jiang R, Zhang G and Sakran KA (2025) Comparison of incisive canal remodeling and root resorption in extraction vs. non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction: a CBCT study.  \nFront. Physiol. 16:1726454 .  \ndoi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1726454  \nCOPYRIGHT  \n© 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) and the copyright owner(s) 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.  \nComparison of incisive canal remodeling and root resorption in extraction vs. non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction: a CBCT study  \nRemsh Khaled Al-Rokhami , Deguo Gao , Xiaobao Dang , Ruiqing Jiang , Guangfeng Zhang and Karim Ahmed Sakran* Zhenjiang Stomatological Hospital, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China  \nBackground: 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 patientaveraged 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.  \nResults: IC width and cortical bone width decreased at several levels in both groups, more prominently in extraction cases (P \u003C 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 \u003C 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 with separated roots (95% CI, 0.08–0.69) .  \nConclusion: 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  \nFrontie","cbCaiq7nYurz5vzK","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiq7nYurz5vzK","pdf",3759705,15,"English","# Introduction\n## Background and anatomical boundaries\n## Envelope of discrepancy and bone remodeling concept\n# Methods\n## Participants and study design\n## CBCT measurements and 3D segmentation\n## Statistical analysis models","[{\"question\":\"What clinical question does this study address?\",\"answer\":\"The study compares how extraction versus non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction affects incisive canal remodeling, root–IC proximity, and apical root resorption, using CBCT.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the study designed and analyzed?\",\"answer\":\"CBCT scans from 86 patients were analyzed at baseline (T1) and after treatment (T2). Measurements included linear dimensions at multiple vertical levels, and volumes/surface areas via standardized 3D segmentation, with statistical models assessing group effects and proximity patterns.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the key findings regarding root–IC proximity and extraction status?\",\"answer\":\"Root–IC distance decreased in all patients, but extraction status showed no independent effect on the change in root–IC distance. Instead, the magnitude of tooth movement increased the likelihood of canal contact or invasion and was associated with greater apical root resorption.\"}]","Comparison of incisive canal remodeling and root resorption in extraction vs. non-extraction fixed orthodontic retraction - a CBCT study | PDF",1790584268,38]