An International Publisher for Academic and Scientific Journals
Author Login 
Scholars Journal of Dental Sciences | Volume-13 | Issue-09
Comparison of the Rate of Maxillary Canine Retraction with Conventional Molar Anchorage and Titanium Mini-Implant Anchorage: A Split-Mouth Quasi-Experimental Study
Rokeya Rahman Tani, Mohsin Munir Khan Nabil, Mst Farzana Yeasmin, Shamsia Noshin, Mehreen Zakir
Published: Sept. 8, 2026 | 15 9
Pages: 169-176
Downloads
Abstract
Background: Anchorage control is critical during maxillary canine retraction in premolar-extraction orthodontic cases. Titanium mini-implants offer absolute intraoral anchorage and may shorten treatment duration compared with conventional molar anchorage; however, comparative data from Bangladeshi patients are lacking. Objective: To measure and compare the amount, duration and rate of maxillary canine retraction between titanium mini-implant anchorage and conventional molar anchorage using a split-mouth design. Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental split-mouth study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dhaka Dental College & Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh, over a six-month period. Sixteen patients requiring therapeutic extraction of both maxillary first premolars and maximum anchorage were enrolled by convenience sampling. After levelling and alignment with a 0.018-inch slot pre-adjusted edgewise appliance (Roth prescription), a Vector TAS titanium mini-implant (1.4 × 8 mm; Ormco, Germany) was inserted between the second premolar and first molar on the right side of the maxilla; the contralateral side received conventional molar anchorage with a banded first molar. Canine retraction was carried out on a 0.016-inch stainless-steel arch wire using NiTi closed-coil springs (Ormco) delivering 150 g of force, measured with a Correx/Dontrix gauge. Pre- and post-retraction lateral cephalograms with customized wire guides were used to measure the horizontal distance from a sella–nasion vertical reference line to the canine hook. The amount of canine retraction was the difference between the two measurements, and the rate was obtained by dividing this amount by the time required for retraction. Data were analyzed and compared by statistical change. Results: A total of 16 patients were enrolled (4 male, 12 females; aged 15–25 years; mean age 19.1 ± 3.7 years). The mean amount of canine retraction was 7.94 ± 2.17 mm on the implant sid