الفهرس 
Material and MethodsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 86 |  |  |
| | | from | 86 | | |
Abstract
Two groups of female patients aged 1218 years were included in the present study. Each group comprised seven patients. Patients had shown Class I crowded anterior teeth. The first group had maxillary orthodontic fixed appliance with a Nance holding arch as an intraoral anchorage. The second group had the same appliance on the same arch, but with modified Nance holding arch (Nance plus transpalatal arches soldered together and to the molar bands). Maxillary canine were retracted. Form the present study the following conclusions could be derived: 1 Orthodontis should treat cases that require canine retraction as maximum anchorage cases. 2 The modified Nance holding arch (Nance and transpalatal arches soldered together) proved very effective and maxillary molars did not move mesially during canine retraction. 3 Holding the first permanent molars in place during canine retraction will guard against their mesial tipping and movement. 4 Food accumulation under the acrylic button of Nance and the bulkiness of the button were a major disadvantages of Nance holding arch. 5 The maxillary first permanent molars were moved mesially (more on the left side) during canine retraction while Nance holding arch was in place.