UNSTRUCTURED
Objective: To investigate orthodontists’ approach concerning managing maxillary impacted canines (MIC). Methods: A cross-sectional study comprising a comprehensive survey with 22 questions was sent to practicing orthodontists. This study explored the preferred diagnostic measures, surgical techniques, materials, and mechanics utilized to manage MIC;104 responses were returned. Results: Palatal impaction was reported to be encountered more often by 60% of the respondents. In 62% of the respondents, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon was the specialist preferred to perform the surgical exposure. In 66%, the choice of required surgical techniques was reported as a joint decision between orthodontists and other specialists who perform the surgery. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was reported to be the diagnostic X-ray of choice. The gold button with a chain was the preferred bonded attachment in 86% of cases. Less than half of the respondents bonded the attachments themselves during surgical exposure. A clear plastic retainer was the preferred retainer in 61% of the respondents, and 43% of the respondents tended to use a closed exposure technique. Coe-pakTM was the preferred surgical pack for orthodontists who prefer an open exposure technique. Piggyback (double wire) was the preferable mechanic to move a palatally impacted canine. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that there are variations among orthodontists on how to manage MICs concerning diagnostic methods, surgical management, materials, and mechanics.
Unilateral palatally impacted canines: Evaluation of pulpal condition after surgical exposure and orthodontic alignment
