At the request of the authors, International Scholarly Research Notices has retracted the article titled “Comparison of Movement of the Upper Dentition According to Anchorage Method: Orthodontic Mini-Implant versus Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Class I Malocclusion” [1]. There were several mistakes on the sample selection and group categorization. The authors divided the patients into Group I (N=20) and Group 2 (N=20), but this group categorization did not consider “Angle Classification”, which is a critical factor in orthodontics. The authors also measured only the upper arch. However, for the interpretation of the real change, we should have considered the lower arch. Without the lower arch data, the results may be useless. The correct categorization and sample criteria are as follows:
(i) Categorization. The subjects were 52 adult female patients treated with sliding mechanics (MBT brackets, .022 slot, .019X.025 stainless steel wire, 3M-Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). They were allocated into Group 1 (N=24, Class I malocclusion (CI), upper and lower first premolar (UP1LP1) extraction, and CAR), Group 2 (N=15, Cl, UP1LP1 extraction, and OMI), and Group 3 (N=13, Class II division 1 malocclusion, upper first and lower second premolar extraction, and OMI).
(ii) Sample Criteria. Skeletal and dental condition: Class I or Class II molar relationship, normal overbite (>0, <4), labioversed upper incisor (U1 to palatal plane>105°), and less than 4 mm crowding in each arch.