Background: The alveolar bone is traditionally and practically considered the anatomical limitation of orthodontic tooth movement. Canine retraction is important step in cases with incisor crowding where extraction provides space for incisor alignment without the need to procline them. Materials and methods: This randomized clinical trial was carried on twenty patients candidates for extraction camouflagic treatment. CBCT was done to all patients and buccal bone thickness was evaluated. The patients was devided into 2 groups. The treatment of group (A) was done using self-ligating brackets and group (B) treatment was done using conventional brackets. Canine retraction was done using sliding mechanics After canine retraction completion CBCT was done again and buccal bone thickness was evaluated again. Results: The results show that there was statistically significant increase in canine labial bone thickness at L1, L2 and L3 in group (A) and group (B) after canine retraction. The results show that there was statistically insignificant difference in percentage of change of canine labial bone thickness at L1, L2 and L3 between group (A) and (B). Conclusion: There was a statistically significant increase in labial bone thickness between (Pre) and (Post) groups with both conventional and SL brackets.

Background: The alveolar bone is traditionally and practically considered the anatomical limitation of orthodontic tooth movement. Canine retraction is important step in cases with incisor crowding where extraction provides space for incisor alignment without the need to procline them. Materials and methods: This randomized clinical trial was carried on twenty patients candidates for extraction camouflagic treatment. CBCT was done to all patients and buccal bone thickness was evaluated. The patients was devided into 2 groups. The treatment of group (A) was done using self-ligating brackets and group (B) treatment was done using conventional brackets. Canine retraction was done using sliding mechanics After canine retraction completion CBCT was done again and buccal bone thickness was evaluated again. Results: The results show that there was statistically significant increase in canine labial bone thickness at L1, L2 and L3 in group (A) and group (B) after canine retraction. The results show that there was statistically insignificant difference in percentage of change of canine labial bone thickness at L1, L2 and L3 between group (A) and (B). Conclusion: There was a statistically significant increase in labial bone thickness between (Pre) and (Post) groups with both conventional and SL brackets.

Objective: The aim of this study was to Clinical Comparative evaluation of the maxillary 1st molars distalization by the Bone-Anchored Distalizer and the Traditional Tooth-Supported Distalizer. Patients and Methods: The sample was consisted of 20 patients (7 males and 13 females), 7 patients (3 Males and 4 females) for group A and 13 patients (4 males and 9 females) for group B. However, 2 of them discontinued the treatment due to different causes. As a result of this, the study was performed on 18 patients. The sample was selected from patients seeking orthodontic treatment in out- patient clinic, Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al- Azhar University, Assiut , Egypt. Patients was divided into two groups; Group (A): In this group, upper molar distalization was done with bone anchored distalizer (advanced molar distalization appliance AMDA, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) and Group (B): In this group, upper molar distalization was done with tooth supported distalizer (fast back appliance, leone, s.p.a, italy).