The multifaceted nature of temporary anchorage devices has made them extremely useful auxiliaries to prevent the unwanted tooth movement during fixed mechanotherapy. A proper planning of the anchor control is required beforehand in order to expel the untoward effects resulting in inefficacious treatment. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine anchor loss during en masse retraction of the anterior segment into the premolar extraction space when Transpalatal arch and Nance palatal arch were used as an anchorage device and to concur whether only one record either study casts or cephalogram could suffice for the evaluation of anchorage loss. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Pre-treatment, mid-treatment and posttreatment study models and lateral cephalograms of forty patients were taken and divided into two groups: Group I: Cases with anchorage reinforcement via Transpalatal Arch; Group II : Cases with anchorage reinforcement via Nance Palatal Arch. The mesial migration of maxillary first molar was determined. Data was then statistically analysed using Independent ‘t’ test RESULTS: Results revealed that both the anchorage regimes were effective in reinforcing anchorage. The anchorage loss was significantly lower in the Nance appliance as compared to the TPA mainly during initial leveling and alignment, space closure and finishing and detailing. CONCLUSION: TPA-Nance might be a suitable alternative method in reinforcing anchorage when taking into consideration the cost, and amount of anchorage loss