ABSTRACT
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the dental and skeletal effects of canine
retraction using conventional anchorage reinforcement systems and comparing them with
the usage of TADs. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 50 patients having Class I malocclusions with bimaxillary
protrusion indicated for first premolar extraction, and allocated into two groups.
The first group consisted of 25 patients with a mean age of 18,7 years (min:14, max:22
years, 16 girls and 9 boys) that TADs were applied as an anchorage mechanic between
attached gingiva of upper second premolar and first molar teeth. The second group
consisted of 25 patients with a mean age of 19,4 years (min:15, max:23 years, 14 girls
and 11 boys) that conventional molar anchorage with Transpalatal arch (TPA) was applied
for the anchorage mechanics against canine retraction. Results: The results showed that mean mesial movement and the tipping of the first molars
in TAD group between T0 - T1 were insignificant (P > 0,05), however in the TPA group were significant (P<0,01). Vertical movement of the molars were not significant when two groups were
compared (P>0,05). Conclusion: Although TPA is a useful appliance, it doesn't provide an effective anchorage control
on anteroposterior movement maxillary first molar teeth concerning first premolar
extraction treatment. TADs are more convenient to provide absolute anchorage during
maxillary canine retraction in contrast to transpalatal arch.
Key words:
Absolute anchorage - miniscrews - temporary anchorage devices - transpalatal arch
