Aim. The duration of orthodontic treatment is the primary concern of almost all the patients. Therefore, this increases the demand to find the best method to increase the rate of tooth movement with the least possible disadvantages. Subjects and Methods: This prospective randomized clinical study was conducted on a total sample of 32 orthodontic patients recommended for upper first premolar extraction as part of their orthodontic treatment plan. The patient ages were ranged from (16-26) years. Patients were assigned to (Group I) single slot bracket, (Group II) double slot bracket. Results: Regarding the post-treatment value, a significantly higher mean value was recorded for Canine Vertical Tipping Angle in single slot bracket group (12.65±6.15), in comparison to double slot bracket group (7.31±2.71), (p=0.00). Canine Cusp Retraction Distance showed a non-significant higher value in double slot bracket group (p=0.30).Conclusion: Double slot bracket is very effective in canine retraction as it showed less canine vertical tipping and more bodily movement during retraction, and more apex retraction value in comparison with single slot bracket.Aim: Acceleration of orthodontic treatment and achieving the desired results is essential for the patients and orthodontist, which increases the importance of finding the best method to accelerate tooth movement. it seems important to compare the rate of root resorption when canine retraction is performed by two different mechanics assuming that there will be less root resorption with lingual retraction mechanics.. Subjects and Methods: This is a prospective randomized clinical study that was conducted on a total sample of 26 orthodontic patients recommended for upper first premolar extraction as part of their orthodontic treatment plan. The patient ages were ranged from (16-26) years. Group I: Thirteen orthodontic patients were treated with Roth brackets 0.022-inch slot for a labial orthodontic appliance with palatal retraction force. Group II: Thirteen orthodontic patients were treated with Roth brackets 0.022-inch slot for a labial orthodontic appliance with labial retraction force.. Results: There is statistically non-significant difference in canine length and canine root resorption between the two studied groups.. Conclusion: Both methods of retraction with labial or palatal force could be effective in canine retraction.