Original Article

Comparison of conventional molar tooth anchorage and micro-implant anchorage regarding canine retraction in treatments with extraction


  • Sıla Mermut Gökçe
  • Serkan Görgülü
  • Hasan Suat Gökçe
  • Ersin Yıldırım
  • Deniz Sağdıç

Received Date: 09.12.2011 Accepted Date: 06.01.2012 Gulhane Med J 2012;54(3):205-211

The aim of this study was to measure the amounts of canine distalization achieved with either one of the micro-implant anchorage and conventional molar anchorage techniques and compare the distalization rates with each other. The study group comprised 18 patients who have had a mean age and age range of 16.7 years and 14-20 years, respectively (10 female, 8 male). The patients were randomly divided into two groups with respect to the type of anchorage technique used. Group 1 consisted of 5 female and 4 male patients with a mean age of 17.5 years, and microimplant was used as the anchorage unit in this group. Group 2 consisted of 5 female and 4 male patients with a mean age of 15.9 years in whom molar teeth were used as anchorage unit. After leveling and aligning, micro-implants with a diameter and length of 1.6 mm and 8 mm, respectively were placed between the roots of the first molars and second premolars in the maxillary and mandibular arches in Group 1. Closed coil springs were applied with the aim of canine distalization with a force of 100 g in both groups. Pre-retraction and post-retraction lateral cephalometric radiograms were obtained, and amounts of retraction were compared with superimposition and measurements. Mean maxillary and mandibulary canine distalization amounts were 4.38 mm and 4.09 mm in the microimplant group, and 3.71 mm and 3.62 mm in the molar anchorage group, respectively.The use of microimplants instead of molar teeth during canine retraction provides a safer anchorage control in both maxilla and mandible.

Keywords: Dental implantation, orthodontic anchorage techniques, orthodontic space closure