Space closure is a challenging process that requires thorough understanding of biomechanics to avoid any undesirable tooth movements. In sliding mechanics; two-step retraction (TSR) and en-masse retraction (ER) are the two basic strategies for closing extraction spaces. No other systematic review has compared the magnitude of incisor retraction, pain, discomfort, amount of root shortening and time taken for space closure between the two techniques. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the degree of anchor loss, time taken for space closure, amount of root resorption, anterior incisor retraction, success rate, patient compliance and aesthetic changes between TSR and ER. Only RCTs were incorporated with inclusion criteria as patients between 10 to 40 years of age undergoing orthodontic treatment with class I and II malocclusions requiring first premolar extraction with absolute or maximum anchorage plan. Seven RCTs have been included in the qualitative synthesis of the review. ER using mini-screws showed a statistically significant difference in anchorage preservation, amount of incisor retraction and time taken for space closure. Anchorage loss between ER and TSR is not significant. However, the time taken for TSR is 1.8 to 2.2 times more than ER and the anchorage control is better provided by mini-screw assisted ER than conventional systems. Pain and discomfort experienced by the patients using mini-screws were initially higher and the amount of root resorption shows no vivid difference in both the techniques.

Disarticulation methods, commonly referred to as bite raisers or bite planes, play a pivotal role in orthodontics. This review consolidates current literature on the various designs, classifications and modifications of anterior and posterior bite planes, along with their clinical indications, ideal requirements and associated complications. Special emphasis is placed on innovations that improve patient comfort, reduce dependence on compliance and minimize adverse effects such as trauma, speech interference, or undesired tooth movement. The article further highlights the significance of tailoring bite raiser selection to the patient‟s facial type, malocclusion, mandibular plane angle and treatment mechanics. A comprehensive understanding of the biomechanics, application protocols and potential risks is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes.

Every year, around 50-200 million children (0-19 years) worldwide are diagnosed with cancer. Efficient and successful patient support and assistance systems and the deterrence of complications significantly improve survival rates and limit long-term relapses. Orthodontic treatment of children who have suffered or are currently enduring cancer treatment is challenging for the Orthodontist and the family members. There are various oncological therapies. These include radio and chemotherapy, bone transplants. These modalities have helped increase the number of paediatric cancer survivors exponentially. But there is an ardent necessity of long term follow up, both in terms of medical and dental. The treatment timing and the nature of cancer dictate Orthodontic management in children with cancer. The children undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy must be dealt with cautiously and with the utmost care during the Orthodontic treatment. Various features like gingivitis, mucositis, xerostomia are typically seen in cancer survivors. These conditions affect the duration of the orthodontic treatment and adversely pose a threat to oral hygiene maintenance. Here, in this article, we provide our perspective on different Orthodontic considerations while dealing with pediatric patients who have already overcome cancer. Cancer therapy critically affects oral and dental health and demands conventional Orthodontic care alterations. This article also provides specific recommendations based on the prevailing practice and existing literature to help Orthodontists modify their treatment modality for pediatric cancer survivors.