Title

Comparative evaluation of anchorage loss and canine retraction rate using mini-implant anchorage versus conventional molar anchorage

Authors

Sunanda Paul^1,*, Md Kalim Ullah², Shahnaz Hamza³, Subash Chandra Nayak⁴, Immaneni Pavan Sai Kumar⁵, P. Sai Sireesha⁶, Rubeena Naaz⁷ & Md Kafeel Ahmed⁸

Affiliation

¹Department of Orthodontics Dentofacial and Orthopaedics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Silchar, Assam, India; ²Department of Dentistry, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India; ³Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Educare Dental College, Malappuram, Kerala, India; ⁴Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Hi-Tech Dental College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India; ⁵Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, CKS Theja Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India; ⁶MDS, Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Consultant in Hyderabad, Telangana, India; ⁷Dental Surgeon, SRK Dental Clinic, HyderabadTelangana, India; ⁸Department of Periodontology and Implantology, MNR Dental College and Hospital, Sangareddy, Hyderabad, Telangana, India; *Corresponding author

Email

Sunanda Paul - E-mail: sunandapaul39@gmail.com; Phone: +91 7411330798
Md Kalim Ullah - E-mail: drmkullah@gmail.com; Phone: +91 9678564607
Shahnaz Hamza - E-mail: shazorth@gmail.com; Phone: +91 9019499538
Subash Chandra Nayak - E-mail: drsubashn@gmail.com; Phone: +91 9040041220
Immaneni Pavan Sai Kumar - E-mail: drpavansai@gmail.com; Phone: +91 7386618714
P Sai Sireesha - E-mail: drsireeshapunya@gmail.com; Phone: +91 7569253160
Rubeena Naaz - E-mail: rubeenakhan412@gmail.com; Phone: +91 9980556623
Md Kafeel Ahmed - E-mail: drkafeelsohar@gmail.com; Phone: +91 9880585623

Article Type

Research Article

Date

Received February 1, 2026; Revised February 28, 2026; Accepted February 28, 2026, Published February 28, 2026

Abstract

Orthodontic anchorage control during space closure is critical to prevent unwanted tooth movement, prolong treatment and maintain facial aesthetics. This randomised controlled trial compared mini-implant versus conventional molar anchorage (transpalatal arch) in 40 premolar extraction patients for bilateral canine retraction over 3 months. Mini-implants significantly reduced anchorage loss (0.42±0.31 mm versus 2.18±0.67 mm, p<0.001) compared to conventional anchorage. Canine retraction rates were superior with mini-implants (1.24±0.28 mm/month versus 0.89±0.22 mm/month, p<0.001). Mini-implant anchorage provides superior preservation and faster canine retraction, establishing it as the preferred choice for maximum anchorage needs.

Keywords

Mini-implant, anchorage loss, canine retraction, temporary anchorage devices (TAD), orthodontic treatment, skeletal anchorage

Citation

Paul et al. Bioinformation 22(2): 1232-1238 (2026)

Edited by

Vini Mehta

ISSN

0973-2063

Publisher

Biomedical Informatics

License

This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. This is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.