Impacted maxillary canines and root resorptions of neighbouring teeth: a radiographic analysis using cone-beam computed tomography

The study analyses the location of impacted maxillary canines and factors influencing root resorptions of adjacent teeth using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). In addition, the interrater reliability between observers of two different dental specialties for radiographic parameters will be evaluated. CBCT images of patients who were referred for radiographic localization of impacted maxillary canines and/or suspicion of root resorptions of adjacent teeth were included. The study analysed the exact three-dimensional location of the impacted canines in the anterior maxilla, frequency and extent of root resorptions, and potential influencing factors. To assess interrater agreement, Cohen's correlation parameters were calculated. This study comprises 113 patients with CBCT scans, and 134 impacted canines were analysed retrospectively. In the patients evaluated, 69 impacted canines were located palatally (51.49 per cent), 41 labially (30.60 per cent), and 24 (17.91 per cent) in the middle of the alveolar process. Root resorptions were found in 34 lateral incisors (25.37 per cent), 7 central incisors (5.22 per cent), 6 first premolars (4.48 per cent), and 1 second premolar (0.75 per cent). There was a significant correlation between root resorptions on adjacent teeth and localization of the impacted canine in relation to the bone, as well as vertical localization of the canine. Interrater agreement showed values of 0.546-0.877. CBCT provides accurate information about location of the impacted canine and prevalence and degree of root resorption of neighbouring teeth with high interrater correlation. This information is of great importance for surgeons and orthodontists for accurate diagnostics and interdisciplinary treatment planning

Impacted maxillary canines and root resorptions of neighbouring teeth: a radiographic analysis using cone-beam computed tomography

The study analyses the location of impacted maxillary canines and factors influencing root resorptions of adjacent teeth using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). In addition, the interrater reliability between observers of two different dental specialties for radiographic parameters will be evaluated. CBCT images of patients who were referred for radiographic localization of impacted maxillary canines and/or suspicion of root resorptions of adjacent teeth were included. The study analysed the exact three-dimensional location of the impacted canines in the anterior maxilla, frequency and extent of root resorptions, and potential influencing factors. To assess interrater agreement, Cohen's correlation parameters were calculated. This study comprises 113 patients with CBCT scans, and 134 impacted canines were analysed retrospectively. In the patients evaluated, 69 impacted canines were located palatally (51.49 per cent), 41 labially (30.60 per cent), and 24 (17.91 per cent) in the middle of the alveolar process. Root resorptions were found in 34 lateral incisors (25.37 per cent), 7 central incisors (5.22 per cent), 6 first premolars (4.48 per cent), and 1 second premolar (0.75 per cent). There was a significant correlation between root resorptions on adjacent teeth and localization of the impacted canine in relation to the bone, as well as vertical localization of the canine. Interrater agreement showed values of 0.546-0.877. CBCT provides accurate information about location of the impacted canine and prevalence and degree of root resorption of neighbouring teeth with high interrater correlation. This information is of great importance for surgeons and orthodontists for accurate diagnostics and interdisciplinary treatment plannin

Localization of impacted maxillary canines and root resorption of neighbouring teeth: a study assessing the diagnostic value of panoramic radiographs in two groups of observers.

OBJECTIVES To assess the diagnostic value of panoramic views (2D) of patients with impacted maxillary canines by a group of trained orthodontists and oral surgeons, and to quantify the subjective need and reasons for further three-dimensional (3D) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study comprises 60 patients with panoramic radiographs (2D) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans (3D), and a total of 72 impacted canines. Data from a standardized questionnaire were compared within (intragroup) and between (intergroup) a group of orthodontists and oral surgeons to assess possible correlations and differences. Furthermore, the questionnaire data were compared with the findings from the CBCT scans to estimate the correlation within and between the two specialties. Finally, the need and reasons for further 3D imaging was analysed for both groups. RESULTS When comparing questionnaire data with the analysis of the respective CBCT scans, orthodontists showed probability (Pr) values ranging from 0.443 to 0.943. Oral surgeons exhibited Pr values from 0.191 to 0.946. Statistically significant differences were found for the labiopalatal location of the impacted maxillary canine (P = 0.04), indicating a higher correlation in the orthodontist group. The most frequent reason mentioned for the further need of 3D analysis was the labiopalatal location of the impacted canines. Oral surgeons were more in favour of performing further 3D imaging (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Orthodontists were more likely to diagnose the exact labiopalatal position of impacted maxillary canines when using panoramic views only. Generally, oral surgeons more often indicated the need for further 3D imaging

Orthodontic retention procedures in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE To survey retention procedures used in orthodontic practices in Switzerland. MATERIAL AND METHODS A questionnaire previously developed by Renkema et al. (2009) was sent to 223 Swiss orthodontists. The questionnaire comprised six parts, mainly containing multiple-choice questions. Information as to background education of the individual orthodontist, retention in general, frequency of different types of removable or bonded retainers that were used, retention pro- tocol, and the type and size of the wire used for bonded retainers was assessed. RESULTS The overall response rate was 65 percent. Most orthodontists placed a bonded retainer in the upper and lower arch, except when the upper arch was expanded during treatment or when extractions were performed in the upper arch, in which case they placed a combination of fixed and removable retainers. Opinions varied with regard to how many hours the removable retainers should be worn and the duration of the retention phase. As far as bonded retainers were concerned, 87 percent of the orthodontists preferred life-long retention. Ninety-three percent of the orthodontists considered that the development of a guide- line on retention procedures would be useful. CONCLUSIONS The choice of retention procedures is mostly based on orthodontists personal preference. A further research into the long-term effectiveness of individual retention protocols is needed