This document compares rapid canine retraction with and without interseptal corticotomy. The study found that canines distalized over 3 mm more and 1.5 mm faster on average with corticotomy compared to without. No root resorption or loss of vitality was observed with either technique. Rapid canine retraction using corticotomy is an effective contemporary technique that reduces orthodontic treatment time through accelerated tooth movement due to the regional accelerated phenomenon.

1. RAPID CANINERAPID CANINE
RETRACTION WITH ANDRETRACTION WITH AND
WITHOUT INTERSEPTALWITHOUT INTERSEPTAL
CORTICOTOMY- ACORTICOTOMY- A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSISCOMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
www.indiandentalacademy.com

2. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
 In past, maximum anchorage casesIn past, maximum anchorage cases
-2 stage retraction-2 stage retraction 
 Rapid canine distalization –Rapid canine distalization –
contemporary techniquecontemporary technique
 Orthodontic treatment time:-Orthodontic treatment time:-
considerable reductionconsiderable reduction
 Limited studies conducted – NiTiLimited studies conducted – NiTi
coil springcoil spring
time consuming
www.indiandentalacademy.comwww.indiandentalacademy.com

3. AIMS & OBJECTIVES
 To evaluate & compare total time period required
– complete canine retraction with closed NiTi coil
spring in Angle’s Class I bimaxillary proclination.
(experimental & control group)
 To evaluate the long term vitality of canine teeth
distalized.
 To evaluate effects on peridontium during rapid
distalization of canine.
www.indiandentalacademy.com

4. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 Kazanjian and Crawford Ilizarov et al
(Clinical Orthopedics, 1989) -
on endochondral bones .
 Liou et al (AJODO, April 2000)
- Intra-oral distraction device – mandible
- The process of osteogenesis in the
periodontal ligament is similar to
midpalatal suture - RPE,
midface distraction.
www.indiandentalacademy.com

5. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Syan, Bengi et al (Angle Orthodontics ,2004) –
Intraoral distracter screw with interseptal
corticotomy.
 McCarthy et al (Plastic Reconstructive
Surgery,1992), ramus lengthening -an extraoral
distracter.
 Kontham et al (JIOS1999)- case report- Intraoral
distracter screw with interseptal corticotomy.
 S. Savanur et al, (JIOS 1999):-Distraction
osteogenesis its role in orthodontics.www.indiandentalacademy.com

6. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Control Experimental
 10 Patients X 4 quadrants = 40 extraction sites (5
control & 5 experimental)
 Age, sex :- no special consideration.
 Average age of treatment group: - 17.6 years.(14-
18years)
 Malocclusion :-Angle’s Class I bimaxillary
proclination with minimal crowding.[ Type A
anchorage]
SAMPLE
www.indiandentalacademy.com

7. MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Records:-
1) Pre treatment
2) Mid treatment
3) Post treatment
 Orthodontic study models,
 IOPA X –ray
 Intra oral photographs
www.indiandentalacademy.com

8. MATERIALS AND METHODS
www.indiandentalacademy.com

9. MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Vitality test of canines
(electric pulp test) www.indiandentalacademy.com

10. MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Retraction force :-
150 gms (NiTi coil spring)
 Frequency of visits :-
Every fortnight
(15 days)
www.indiandentalacademy.com

11. SURGICAL METHOD (corticotomy)
www.indiandentalacademy.com

12. Osteotomy cuts
Immediate loading – NiTi coil spring
www.indiandentalacademy.com

13. 15 DAYS
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTROLwww.indiandentalacademy.com

14. 30 DAYS
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTROL
www.indiandentalacademy.com

15. 45 DAYS
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTROL
www.indiandentalacademy.com

16. 60 DAYS
EXPERIMENTAL
CONTROL
www.indiandentalacademy.com

17. INTRAORAL MEASUREMENTS
 The distances before
distraction and bi-weekly
thereafter with a sliding
caliper.
 Every fortnight (15 days)
1) A periapical radiograph,
2) Vitality test
3) Intraoral photograph of
canine – premolar.
www.indiandentalacademy.com

18. Average 13,23 33,43 13,23 33,43
 Day 15 2 mm 1.5mm 3.0mm 2.5mm
 Day 30 2.5mm 2mm 5.5mm 4.5mm
 Day 45 3mm 2.5mm 6.5mm 5.5mm
CONTROL EXPERIMENTAL
AMOUNT OF RETRACTION
DAYS
 Day 60 3.5mm 3.0mm 7.0mm 6.5mm
www.indiandentalacademy.com

19. RESULTS
 Experimental group:- Maxillary canines distalized
7.0 mm & mandibular canines distalized 6.5 mm in
eight weeks .
 Control group:- Maxillary canines distalized 3.5
mm & mandibular canines distalized 3.0 mm in
eight weeks .
 No root resorption observed during study.
 No loss of vitality observed during study.
www.indiandentalacademy.com

20.  Rapid canine distalization –
contemporary technique
 Reduced treatment time- Advantage
 Dental distraction similar to RPE, mid
face distraction
 Regional accelerated phenomenon-
osetoclastic activity Faster tooth
movement
 PDL response
 Less resistance Faster tooth
movement
DISCUSSION
www.indiandentalacademy.com

21. DISCUSSION
 Eric Liou et al (AJODO,1998)- Intraoral distracter
screw with interseptal corticotomy– average
retraction
13,23 - 6.5mm / 3 weeks
33,43- 6.6mm / 3 weeks
 Eric Liou et al (AJODO,April2000)- Intraoral
distracter screw with interseptal corticotomy–
average retraction 6mm / 7weeks
 Kontham et al (JIOS1999)- Intraoral distracter
screw with interseptal corticotomy- average
retraction 7mm / 3 weeks www.indiandentalacademy.com

22. DISCUSSION
 Syan & Bengi et al -- Intraoral distracter screw with
interseptal corticotomy – average retraction
13,23 – 5.7mm / 3 weeks
33,43-- 3.5mm / 3 weeks
 This study , closed loop NiTi coil spring
--average retraction
13,23 – 7.0mm / 8 weeks
33,43-- 6.5mm / 8 weeks
www.indiandentalacademy.com

23. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
 Best time to initiate orthodontic tooth
movement- edentulous span is fibrous& just
start of osteoblastic activity.
 Tooth movement 1.5mm / 15 days without
1. loss of vitality
2. root resorption
3. infra bony pockets
4. gingival dehiscence
 Maximum anchorage, severe anterior crowding
cases - successfully treated
www.indiandentalacademy.com

24. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
LONG
TERM
EVALUATION
ROOT
RESORPTION
GINGIVAL
& ALVEOLAR
BONE RESPONSE
VITALITY
OF CANINE
www.indiandentalacademy.com

25. www.indiandentalacademy.comwww.indiandentalacademy.com