Buccally impacted maxillary canines increase the likelihood of root separation in adjacent first premolars

Cao, Dan; Zhu, Liping; Chen, Yali; Xie, Lizhe; Yan, Bin; Sun, Zheng

doi:10.1111/odi.12566

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The configuration of the first premolar showed a high link to canine impaction in the present study; 53% of impaction was associated with a separated root configuration. This is in line with Cao et al [ 30 ], who found that separated roots have a higher incidence of impaction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Predictive factors associated with adjacent teeth root resorption of palatally impacted canines in Arabian population: a cone-beam computed tomography analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to evaluate three-dimensionally the factors associated with adjacent teeth root resorption of palatally impacted canines. Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, one-hundred and fourteen cone beam computed tomography scans with palatally impacted maxillary canines were evaluated for the presence of adjacent root resorption. Seven parameters were analyzed: alignment of maxillary incisors, presence of deciduous canines, first premolars’ roots configuration, impacted canines rotation, angulation of impacted canine to the midline, contact relationship, and area of contact with adjacent teeth. The association between dependent and independent qualitative and quantitative variables was analyzed using chi-square and independent student’s t-test, respectively. The multivariate analysis was performed using regression analysis. The significant value was set at P ≤ 0.05. Results The overall incidence of vertical, horizontal impaction and adjacent root resorption were 92, 8 and 77.2%, respectively. The apical third was the most involved area (57%); resorption of a single tooth was found in 21.9% of the total sample. The most common resorbed teeth were lateral first premolars (24.6%), followed by central lateral incisors (20.2%), and lateral incisors (15.8%) of the total sample. The severity of resorption was highest in grade I (31.5%) and lowest in grade III (7.6%). Three variables showed significant differences between resorption and non-resorption groups namely; canine rotation (P < 0.013), contact relationship (P < 0.001), and area of contact with adjacent teeth (P < 0.001). Regression analysis revealed an association between adjacent root resorption and permanent canine rotation, adjacent premolars’ roots configuration, contact relationship, and area of contact (P < 0.05). Conclusion Two-thirds of impacted maxillary canines showed a form of root resorption. The most commonly resorbed tooth was the lateral incisors while the least affected one was the central incisors with apical one-third being of the highest risk. The predisposing factors including the canine rotation, premolar with separated roots, contact relationship, and area of contact with adjacent teeth are to be considered for any interceptive treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Predictive factors associated with adjacent teeth root resorption of palatally impacted canines in Arabian population: a cone-beam computed tomography analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accuracy of measurement recorded by CT and CBCT machines has been reported on by several authors (Loubele et al, 2008). Although it can be concluded that CBCT systems render anatomical measurements reliably and are an appropriate tool for linear measurements (Patcas et al, 2012), the level of accuracy and inter‐operator error may be affected by visual limitations, or when measuring small cross‐sectional bone dimensions (Cao et al, 2017; Leung et al, 2010; Patcas et al, 2012; Wood et al, 2013). This is particularly important when immature or newly forming bone tissue may have a reduced bone density (Januario et al, 2011; Marmulla et al, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial

MacBeth

Donos

Mardas

2022

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare radiographic bone changes, following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR), a Socket Seal (SS) technique or unassisted socket healing (Control). Material and methods:Patients requiring a single rooted tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla, were randomly allocated into: GBR, SS and Control groups (n= 14/). Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) images were recorded post-extraction and at 4 months, the mid-buccal and mid-palatal alveolar ridge heights (BARH/PARH) were measured. The alveolar ridge width, cross-sectional socket and alveolar-process area changes, implant placement feasibility, requirement for bone augmentation and postsurgical complications were also recorded.Results: BARH and PARH was found to increase with the SS (0.65 mm ± 1.1/0.65 mm ± 1.42) techniques, stabilise with GBR (0.07 mm ± 0.83/0.86 mm ±1.37) and decrease in the Control (−0.52 mm ± 0.8/−0.43 mm ± 0.83). Statistically significance was found when comparing the GBR and SS BARH (p = .04/.005) and GBR PARH (p = .02) against the Control. GBR recorded the smallest reduction in alveolar ridge width (−2.17 mm ± 0.84), when compared to the Control (−2.3 mm ± 1.11) (p = .89). A mid-socket cross-sectional area reduction of 4% (−2.27 mm 2 ± 11.89), 1% (−0.88 mm 2 ± 15.48) and 13% (−6.93 mm 2 ± 8.22) was found with GBR, SS and Control groups (GBR vs. Control p = .01). The equivalent alveolar process area reduction was 8% (−7.36 mm 2 ± 10.45), 6% (−7 mm 2 ± 18.97) and 11% (−11.32 mm 2 ± 10.92). All groups supported implant placement, with bone dehiscence noted in 57% (n = 4), 64%(n = 7) and 85%(n = 12) of GBR, SS and Control cases (GBR vs. Control p = .03). GBR had a higher risk of swelling and mucosal colour change, with SS associated with graft sequestration and matrix breakdown. Conclusion:GBR ARP was found to be more effective at reducing radiographic bone dimensional changes following tooth extraction.

show abstract

Buccally impacted maxillary canines increase the likelihood of root separation in adjacent first premolars

Abstract: Buccally impacted maxillary canines are associated with an increased prevalence of root separation in the adjacent maxillary first premolars. This is likely because that buccally impacted canines encroach on the space needed for root development of the first premolars.

Cited by 2 publications

References 19 publications

Predictive factors associated with adjacent teeth root resorption of palatally impacted canines in Arabian population: a cone-beam computed tomography analysis

Predictive factors associated with adjacent teeth root resorption of palatally impacted canines in Arabian population: a cone-beam computed tomography analysis

Alveolar ridge preservation with guided bone regeneration or socket seal technique. A randomised, single‐blind controlled clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About