Comparison of temporary anchorage devices and transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction.

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 ( > 0,05), however in the TPA group were significant (<0,01). Vertical movement of the molars were not significant when two groups were compared (>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.