Comparison of Maxillary Canine Retraction Using Split-Mouth Design With Dual Force Cuspid Retractor and T-loop...

Introduction This study was designed to explore the differences between two frictionless mechanics for canine retraction i.e., dual force cuspid retractor and T-loop segmental arch. T-loop for canine retraction creates a biomechanical system to deliver a predetermined force and a relatively constant moment-to-force ratio whereas dual force cuspid retractor uses power arms on buccal as well as palatal aspects for canine retraction. Bodily tooth movement can be achieved by both methods, but in this study, our main focus was to reduce the canine retraction timing with better three-dimensional control. Method This split-mouth study was conducted on a total of 20 cuspids of ten patients (five male and five female). Where one side of the arch was selected for T-loop and the other side for dual force cuspid retractor, randomly. Inclusion criteria for this study were; no congenitally missing teeth (excluding third molar), class I or class II molar relationship, no previous history of orthodontic treatment, good oral periodontal status, patients in whom extraction of maxillary first premolar during treatment was indicated. Both groups were compared for the duration of canine retraction, anchorage loss; tipping, and rotation of cuspid and molar, individually, after retraction. Result The result of this study showed that the duration of canine retraction was significantly less in group one, i.e., dual force cuspid retractor 73.8 ± 12.38 days, than in group two, i.e., T-loop 109.4 ± 16.71 days. The anchorage loss in group one was 0.60 ± 0.61 mm and that in group two was 2.40 ± 0.87 mm. Also, the amount of tipping and rotation of the cuspid and molar individually was significantly lesser in group one than in group two. Conclusion In this study, the dual force cuspid retractor shortens the duration of canine retraction with better three-dimensional control and better anchorage preservation when compared to T-loop.