Background This study aimed to assess and compare two approaches of periodontal distraction during orthodontic canine retraction. Methods A consecutive sample of 27 patients (54 canines) requiring extraction of upper 4s and canine retraction were grouped into three groups; canine retraction by using buccal periodontal distractor with distal interseptal bone cuts (group I), canine retraction by using buccal periodontal distractor without distal interseptal bone cuts (group II), conventional canine retraction on miniscrew (group III). The patients were evaluated before (T0) and after canine retraction (T1) for rate of canine retraction directly in patient’s mouth and at 1st ,2nd ,4th and 7th days after activation for pain sensation through visual analog scale (VAS). Results Regarding the rate of canine retraction, statistical analysis revealed that there was a significant difference between 3 groups. A significantly higher value was recorded in group I, followed by group II, with the lowest value recorded in group III (P-value > 0.05). Regarding pain score, statistical analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between group I and II (p < 0.05) but the values recorded in them was significantly higher than group III within 1st and 2nd days (p > 0.05) respectively. Within 4th and 7th days, there was statically significant difference between 3 groups with the highest pain value in group II, followed by group I, with the lowest value in group III (p > 0.05). Conclusions canine retraction movement was accelerated effectively by periodontal distraction technique either with or without distal interseptal bone cuts; the periodontal distraction with distal interseptal bone cuts was higher in rate of canine retraction and lower in pain sensation than the periodontal distraction without distal interseptal bone cuts.