[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-460395-105":59,"doc-detail-460395-en":130},{"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":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","evaluating-receptor-activator-of-nuclear-factor-kappa-b-ligand-rankl-and-osteoprotegerin-opg-expression-during-canine-retraction-a-comparison-between-periodontal-distraction-versus-conventional-retraction","Evaluating Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL) and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression during canine retraction - A comparison between periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction","","Objective: evaluate and compare expression levels of Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL) and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) in canine periodontal tissues subjected to periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction at multiple time points. Materials and methods: 40 cuspids from 20 patients were randomized to periodontal distraction (PD) or conventional retraction; split-mouth appliance placement and ELISA analysis were performed on gingival crevicular fluid at D0, W1, and W6. Results: PD shortened retraction duration and increased RANKL while lowering OPG at W1 and W6. Conclusion: periodontal distraction accelerates tooth movement through enhanced remodeling activity.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@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/evaluating-receptor-activator-of-nuclear-factor-kappa-b-ligand-rankl-and-osteoprotegerin-opg-expression-during-canine-retraction-a-comparison-between-periodontal-distraction-versus-conventional-retraction/460395/",{"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/evaluating-receptor-activator-of-nuclear-factor-kappa-b-ligand-rankl-and-osteoprotegerin-opg-expression-during-canine-retraction-a-comparison-between-periodontal-distraction-versus-conventional-retraction/460395.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"ahduag","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the main objective of the study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To evaluate and compare RANKL and OPG expression in canine periodontal tissues after periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction at different treatment time points.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How were patients and treatments organized in the study?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Forty cuspids from 20 patients were randomly allocated to either the periodontal distraction (PD) group or the conventional retraction group using a split-mouth design, with appliances placed by a single practitioner.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What differences did the study find between periodontal distraction and conventional retraction?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Periodontal distraction significantly reduced canine retraction duration (24.1 ± 2.08 days vs 110.5 ± 4.84 days), increased RANKL at weeks 1 and 6, and decreased OPG at weeks 1 and 6.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},460395,1790977582,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":29,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},3985747870414,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Original Article  \n\n| Access this article online |\n| --- |\n| Quick Response Code: |\n| |\n| Website:\u003Cbr>[www.jorthodsci.org](www.jorthodsci.org) |\n| DOI:\u003Cbr>10.4103/jos.jos_69_25 |\n\nEvaluating Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa  \nB Ligand (RANKL) and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression during canine retraction: A comparison between periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction  \nOsama Eissa, Atia Yousif, Tarek El‑Bialy1, Shaimaa Elmarhoumy, Sherif Ramadan and Mohamed Farag  \nDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt, 1Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada  \nAddress for correspondence:  \nDr. Osama Eissa, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta-31773, Egypt.  \nE-mail: osama.ea.eissa@ [gmail.com](gmail.com)  \nSubmitted: 13-May-2025  \nRevised: 29-Sep-2025  \nAccepted: 29-Nov-2025  \nPublished: 23-Dec-2025  \n\n| Abstract\u003Cbr>OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the expression levels of Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL) and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) in canine periodontal tissues subjected to periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction at different treatment time points.\u003Cbr>MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 40 cuspids from 20 patients (9 males, 11 females) randomly allocated to either the periodontal distraction (PD) group or the conventional retraction group. Appliances were applied by a single practitioner in a split‑mouth design. In Group 1 (PD), a trans‑palatal arch and Hyrax expanders were used following premolar extraction with osteotomies performed to facilitate distraction. Group 2 (conventional retraction) used MBT brackets with sectional archwires and elastic chains. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were collected on the first day (D0), after 1 week (W1), and 6 weeks (W6) and OPG and RANKL levels were analyzed using ELISA test.\u003Cbr>RESULTS: There was a significant difference in canine retraction duration between methods ( P \u003C 0.001), with periodontal distraction taking 24.1 ± 2.08 days versus 110.5 ± 4.84 days for conventional retraction. RANKL levels showed no baseline difference, but were significantly higher in the periodontal distraction group at weeks 1 and 6 ( P = 0.010 and P = 0.001, respectively) . OPG levels were initially similar, but by weeks 1 and 6, they were significantly lower in the periodontal distraction group ( P = 0.001) .\u003Cbr>CONCLUSION: The periodontal distraction method significantly reduces the duration of canine retraction and enhances osteoclastic activity, as evidenced by increased RANKL and decreased OPG levels, facilitating accelerated tooth movement through efficient bone resorption and remodeling.\u003Cbr>Keywords:\u003Cbr>Canine retraction, OPG, periodontal distraction, RANKL\u003Cbr>This isan open access article distributed under the terms of the |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑NoDerivatives 4.0 License (CC BY‑NC‑ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in anyway or used commercially without permission from the journal.\u003Cbr>[For reprints contact:](For reprints contact: WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com)[ WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com](For reprints contact: WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com) | How to cite this article: Eissa O, YousifA, El-Bialy T, Elmarhoumy S, Ramadan S, Farag M. Evaluating Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL) and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression during canine retraction: A comparison between periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction. J Orthodont Sci 2025;14:51 . |\n\n© 2025 Journal of Orthodontic Science | Published by Wolters Kluwer-Medknow 1  \nEissa, et al.: RANKL and OPG expression during Canine Periodontal Distraction  \nIntroduction  \nOrthodontic treatment  \nteeth movement to  \noften necessitates controlled correct malocclusions and  \nenhance aesthetics","cbCaikqr0FdXgw4p","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikqr0FdXgw4p","pdf",785930,"English","# Introduction\n## Orthodontic treatment\n## Biological mechanisms and RANKL/OPG regulation\n# Materials and Methods\n# Results\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What was the main objective of the study?\",\"answer\":\"To evaluate and compare RANKL and OPG expression in canine periodontal tissues after periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction at different treatment time points.\"},{\"question\":\"How were patients and treatments organized in the study?\",\"answer\":\"Forty cuspids from 20 patients were randomly allocated to either the periodontal distraction (PD) group or the conventional retraction group using a split-mouth design, with appliances placed by a single practitioner.\"},{\"question\":\"What differences did the study find between periodontal distraction and conventional retraction?\",\"answer\":\"Periodontal distraction significantly reduced canine retraction duration (24.1 ± 2.08 days vs 110.5 ± 4.84 days), increased RANKL at weeks 1 and 6, and decreased OPG at weeks 1 and 6.\"}]","Evaluating Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL) and Osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression during canine retraction - A comparison between periodontal distraction versus conventional retraction | PDF",1790758375,15]