International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Health Volume 1 Issue 1, December 2015 Mahmoud Al-Suleiman et al. (2015), Comparison of Two Methods for Canine Retraction Depending on Direct Skeletal Anchorage System (CR-DSAS). Int J Dent & Oral Heal.1:1, 21-32, DOI: 10.25141/2471-657X-2015-1.0007 International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Health Comparison of Two Methods for Canine Retraction Depending on Direct Skeletal Anchorage System (CR-DSAS) Case Report Open Access Corresponding Author: Mahmoud Al-Suleiman, Department of Orthodontics, University of Aleppo, Syria Citation: Mahmoud Al-Suleiman et al. (2015), Comparison of Two Methods for Canine Retraction Depending on Direct Skeletal Anchorage System (CR-DSAS). Int J Dent & Oral Heal. 1:1, 21-32. DOI: 10.25141/2471-657X-2015-1.0007 Copyright: ©2015 Mahmoud Al-Suleiman et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited 21 Received: November 19, 2015; Accepted: December 18, 2015; Published: December 31, 2015 Mahmoud Al Suleiman*, Manal Shehadah Department of Orthodontics, University of Aleppo, Syria ISSN 2471- 657X Introduction: Various anchorage techniques have been used for canine retraction. Traditional anchorage techniques have not always been very effcient. Recently, Temporary anchorage devices such as miniscrews are considered to be an effective source of anchorage for canine retraction. The purpose of this study was to compare between elastic chain and closed coil in retracting upper canines when using miniscrews as skeletal anchorage in class 2 division1 cases. Methods: Twenty-two patients with class 2 division 1 were treated with preadjusted appliances. Depending on miniscrews as direct skeletal anchorage, elastic chain and closed coil were used to retract upper canines after frst premolar extraction. Cephalometric radio- graphs and cast models were been used to evaluate canine retraction. Results were analyzed by SPSS 15 using T student test. Results: Upper canines were retracted in 5-5.5 month; Canine crowns were retracted 6.97mm by elastic chain and 7.08 mm by closed coil. Canine apices were retracted 1.06mm by elastic chain and 1.43mm by closed coil. Anchorage loss with miniscrews was 0.07-0.2 mm. Conclusions: Miniscrews provide absolute skeletal anchorage, Canine movement with skeletal anchorage is faster than traditional techniques, Canines tipped distally when retracted depending on direct skeletal anchorage, and there was no statistical differences between elastic chain and closed coil in retracting canines. Abstract keywords: Canine Retraction, Skeletal Anchorage System, Orthodontics Introduction: Teeth are being extracted in orthowdontic treatment moreover to align crowded incisors without increasing protrusion and to allow camoufage jaw relationships when correction by growth modifcation is not possible [1] . Space closure after premolars extraction is an important stage in comprehensive orthodontic treatment and can be done either by en mass anterior retraction (in one stage) or canine retraction followed with incisors retraction (in two stages) [1,2] Canine can be retracted either by friction or frictionless mechanics [3] , friction mechanics are used in sliding techniques such as edgewise and preadjusted techniques either by tie back, elastic chain [4] , laceback [5,6] intermaxillary elastic [4], coil springs [4], or headgear with j-hook [4,7]. Many in vivo and in vitro studies compared between elastic chain and coil spring.[8-13] Elastic chain lose 50-70% of its force in the frst 24 hour after application and will continue after that but with less rate [14,15]. Close coil springs also lose its force but in less rate than elastic [15]. Anchorage is a big issue in space closure and sometimes it is necessary to apply maximum anchorage procedures [16]. Recently temporary skeletal anchorage such as miniscrews[17],