Document Type : Original Article


1 Consultant Orthodontist, Private Office, Navi Mumbai (MS), India

2 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Rungta College of Dental Sciences, Bhilai (CG), India


Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare labial and lingual forces of the rate of canine retraction and three dimensional control of the molar and canine using sliding mechanics.
Methods: Ten patients with Angle’s class I malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion referred for first premolar extraction enrolled in this split mouth study. Forty canines were placed into four groups according to the arch and type of force: UB (upper canine–labial force), LB (lower canine–labial force), UL (upper canine–lingual force), and LL (lower canine–lingual force). The rate of retraction of the canine, molar and canine rotation, molar and canine angulation, and molar anchorage loss in the sagittal and vertical plane was assessed using study models and orthopantomographs (OPG). The paired and unpaired t tests were used for intra and inter group comparison. The significance level was 0.05.
Results: The rate of canine retraction was significantly faster for labial forces than lingual forces using sliding mechanics (P<0.001). However, significantly greater amount of molar rotation was observed using lingual forces (P<0.001). There was no significant difference regarding canine rotation using labial forces (P<0.05). The molar anchorage loss in the sagittal plane was significantly lesser using lingual forces (P<0.001).
Conclusion: Canine retraction was faster when labial forces were applied using sliding mechanics whereas 3D-molar control was better when lingual forces were applied, which is advantageous for critical anchorage cases.


Main Subjects

  1. Xu TM, Zang X, Oh HS, Boyd RL, Korn EL, Baumrind S. Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with two retraction techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 544.e1 - 544.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.12.027.
  2. Kroczek C, Kul K, Stewart K, Baldwin J, Fu T, Chen J. Comparison of the orthodontic load systems created with elastomeric power chain to close extraction spaces on different rectangular archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 262-8. doi:10.1016/j. ajodo.2011.09.007.
  3. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K. Lingual orthodontics. A new approach using STb light lingual system and lingual straight wire. 1st ed. London: Quintessence publishing; 2010.
  4. Bourauel C, Drescher D, Ebling J, Broome D, Kanarachos A . Superelastic nickel titanium alloy retraction springsAn experimental investigation into force systems. Euro J Orthod. 1997; 19: 491-500. doi: 10.1093/ejo/19.5.491.
  5. Roth RH. Treatment mechanics for the straight wire appliance. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, eds. Orthodontics, Current Principles and Techniques. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1994.
  6. Proffit WR. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th edition. St. Louis: Mosby; 2010.
  7. Kuhlberg AJ. Steps in orthodontic treatment. In: Bishara SE. Textbook of Orthodontics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2001: Pg. 240-2.
  8. Al-Sayagh NM, Ismael AJ. Evaluation of canine tipping during its retraction with sliding mechanics - An in vitro study. Al-Rafidain Dent J 2011; 11: 146-53. doi: 10.33899/rden.2012.42625.
  9. Romano R. Lingual Orthodontics. BC Decker Inc.: Hamilton; 1998.
  10. Sonis AL, Van der Plas E, Gianelly A. A comparison of elastomeric auxiliaries versus elastic thread on premolar extraction site closure - An in vivo study. Am J Orthod 1986; 89: 73-8. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(86)90115-6.
  11. Ziegler P, Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989; 95: 99- 106. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0.
  12. Bokas J, Woods M. A clinical comparison between nickel titanium springs and elastomeric chains. Aust Orthod J 2006; 22: 39-46. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0.
  13. Agrawal V, Shivalinga BM, Ragunath N. A comparative evaluation of canine retraction and anchorage loss using self-ligating and conventional MBT Pre-adjusted edgewise bracket systems - A clinical study. J Indian Orthod Soc 2008; 4: 29-35. doi:10.21276/ ijcmr. 2018.5.9.4.
  14. Bhat ZI, Naik CR, Rahalkar JS. Comparison of canine retraction using single and Siamese edgewise brackets - An in vivo study. APOS Trends Orthod 2013; 3: 91-8. doi:10.4103/2321-1407.117366.
  15. Geron S, Romano R and Brosh T. Vertical forces in labial and lingual orthodontics applied on maxillary incisors - A theoretical approach. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 195–201. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074 <0195:VFILAL> 2.0.CO;2.