Comparison of surgical and non-surgical methods of treating palatally impacted canines. II - Aesthetic outcomes
Published Online: Dec 13, 2023
Page range: 8 - 15
Received: Jul 01, 2006
Accepted: Feb 01, 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2007-0002
© 2007 Kwok K. Ling et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Background
Palatally impacted maxillary canines may appear unsightly after treatment because of changes in position and colour.
Aim
To determine if palatally impacted canines treated either by surgical exposure and orthodontic repositioning or by creation of space in the arch and unassisted eruption have different aesthetic outcomes.
Methods
Twenty eight subjects with unilateral palatally impacted canines who had completed orthodontic treatment at least 6 months previously were recruited from three specialist practices. In 14 subjects the canines had been treated by surgical exposure, orthodontic extrusion and repositioning in the arch (SE group) and in the remainder the deciduous canines were extracted and excess space created in the arch for the canines to erupt naturally (OT group). The contralateral canines were used as controls. The mean pretreatment ages of the subjects in the SE and OT groups were 13.5 (SD: 1.6) years and 13.5 (SD: 1.3) years respectively. The position and colour of the canines were assessed on post-treatment study models and 35 mm slides using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO OGS) and subjective appraisal by two orthodontists. Each subject used a semantic scale to rate the aesthetic outcome of treatment.
Results
Sixty four per cent of the treated canines in the SE group were significantly more ‘intruded’ than the treated canines in the OT group (
Conclusions
Palatally impacted canines treated by surgical exposure, extrusion and orthodontic treatment were more likely to be displaced vertically (‘intruded’) after treatment than palatally impacted canines treated by extraction of the overlying deciduous canines and creation of excess space in the arch. Small occlusal and aesthetic changes detected by the orthodontists, but not the ABO OGS, did not appear to detract from the satisfaction of the subjects with the results of orthodontic treatment.