{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02313030069390902, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015420200462606014, 'mean_word_length': 4.926940639269406, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics.

OBJECTIVE
To compare anchorage condition in cases in which transpalatal arch was used to enhance anchorage in both continuous and segmented arch techniques.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty cases that required first premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment and transpalatal arch to enhance anchorage were included in this study. Ten cases were treated using the continuous arch technique, while the other 10 cases were treated using 0.019 × 0.025-inch TMA T-loops with posterior anchorage bend according to the Burstone and Marcotte description. Lateral cephalometric analysis of before and after canine retraction was performed using Ricketts analysis to measure the anteroposterior position of the upper first molar to the vertical line from the Pt point. Data were analyzed using an independent sample t-test.


RESULTS
There was a statistically significant forward movement of the upper first molar in cases treated by continuous arch mechanics (4.5 ± 3.0 mm) compared with segmented arch mechanics (-0.7 ± 1.4 mm; P  =  .01).


CONCLUSIONS
The posterior anchorage bend to T-loop used to retract the maxillary canine can enhance anchorage during maxillary canine retraction.