Treatment for critically impacted maxillary canines: Clinical versus scientific evidence - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Critically impacted maxillary canines are prone to fail to respond to conventional surgical exposure and orthodontic traction. Correct identification of a critical impaction requires enhanced diagnosis modalities and might lead to incorporating alternative surgical strategies in the treatment plan. Predictability of techniques such as apicotomy or tooth autotransplantation is, however, yet to be determined. The objective of this study was to systematically review treatment perspectives for critically impacted maxillary canines. METHODS: A systematic review of the available literature until april 2020 was conducted using an electronic search in Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science and PubMed databases. Randomised and non-randomised studies investigating treatment options and treatment outcome for buccally and/or palatally critically impacted maxillary canines were considered for the review. Information recorded concerned study design and setting, participants' characteristics and details regarding the type of intervention, types of outcomes measured and follow-up time. The included studies received a methodological quality scoring and risk of bias analysis according to a tool suggested by Murad et al (2018). RESULTS: Five studies were included in the quality analysis, all case series. The included studies enrolled a total of 302 patients and counted 346 critical maxillary canine impactions. Apicotomy and autotransplantation were listed as potential surgical approaches with surgical outcome presented for both surgical strategies. Adequate esthetical and/or functional outcomes were reported in most of the included studies. According to the quality assessment tool used, the reviewed studies scored medium on the proposed scale. DISCUSSION: Literature featuring protocols for identifying and treating critical maxillary canine impaction only consists of case series and case reports, which provide low level of evidence. The rather good results reported by the reviewed studies must be put into perspective as the methodology of these studies was insufficient and potential bias was identified. Comprehensive clinical research is needed to further investigate treatment options and form a basis for clinical guidelines.

Surgically assisted orthodontic alignment of impacted maxillary canines: A retrospective analysis of functional and esthetic outcomes and risk factors for failure.

INTRODUCTION: The initial position of an impacted maxillary canine might influence the outcome of surgically assisted exposure and orthodontic alignment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate existing correlations between the initial position of the maxillary canine and the outcomes of treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed, containing data of 132 patients (47 males, 106 females; median age at the date of surgical exposure 14 ± 4.6 years; range, 10-39 years) with a total of 153 impacted maxillary canines. The sample was based on orthodontic referrals over 4 years at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands. The esthetic outcome, treatment duration, and success and failure rate were investigated in relation to the initial position of the maxillary canine as assessed on pretreatment panoramic radiographs (vertical and anteroposterior sector position and angulation of the canine [α-angle]). The esthetic evaluation was performed using the Maxillary Canine Aesthetic Index. The success of treatment was defined as achieving a fully functional eruption of the canine, with an esthetically excellent result, without the need for reinterventions. Failure of treatment was defined as the need for reintervention or removal of the canine. RESULTS: In 96% of the impacted canines, a successful orthodontically assisted eruption was achieved. Age, vertical distance, and angulation are predictors of the esthetic outcome of impacted canines after treatment. Age, bilateral impaction, sector, vertical distance, and angulation are predictors of treatment duration. Age, vertical distance, and buccolingual position are predictors of the need for reintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment radiographic variables can help in predicting the outcome and treatment duration of surgically exposed maxillary impacted canines.

Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is the surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is performed in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an review originally published in 2005 and previously updated in 2012 and 2016. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 May 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 May 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 May 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov)and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. . SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with no restriction on length of follow-up, comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We also considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently and in duplicate conducted the risk of bias assessments. When information was unclear, we contacted the study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes the same two studies that were identified in our previous version of the review: one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom, and one prospective cohort study, which was conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low- to very low-certainty evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures. One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effects of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal aspect of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth. One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch. The included studies did not measure any of our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed or retained. Although retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is very low certainty. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the current lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision-making with people who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain these teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.

Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth is surgical removal of wisdom teeth in the absence of symptoms and with no evidence of local disease. Impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with pathological changes, such as pericoronitis, root resorption, gum and alveolar bone disease (periodontitis), caries and the development of cysts and tumours. When surgical removal is carried out in older people, the risk of postoperative complications, pain and discomfort is increased. Other reasons to justify prophylactic removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted third molars have included preventing late lower incisor crowding, preventing damage to adjacent structures such as the second molar or the inferior alveolar nerve, in preparation for orthognathic surgery, in preparation for radiotherapy or during procedures to treat people with trauma to the affected area. Removal of asymptomatic disease-free wisdom teeth is a common procedure, and researchers must determine whether evidence supports this practice. This review is an update of an existing review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of removal compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 May 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 May 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 24 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies to 24 May 2016. We imposed no restrictions on language or date of publication in our search of electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies comparing removal (or absence) with retention (or presence) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents or adults. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no restriction on length of follow-up, if available. We considered quasi-RCTs and prospective cohort studies for inclusion if investigators measured outcomes with follow-up of five years or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight review authors screened search results and assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to the review inclusion criteria. Eight review authors independently conducted risk of bias assessments in duplicate. When information was unclear, we contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes two studies. The previous review included one RCT with a parallel-group design, which was conducted in a dental hospital setting in the United Kingdom; our new search for this update identified one prospective cohort study conducted in the private sector in the USA. Primary outcome No eligible studies in this review reported the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on health-related quality of life Secondary outcomes We found only low to very low quality evidence of the effects of removal compared with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth for a limited number of secondary outcome measures.One prospective cohort study, reporting data from a subgroup of 416 healthy male participants, aged 24 to 84 years, compared the effect of the absence (previous removal or agenesis) against the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on periodontitis and caries associated with the distal of the adjacent second molar during a follow-up period of three to over 25 years. Very low quality evidence suggests that the presence of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting the adjacent second molar in the long term. In the same study, which is at serious risk of bias, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in caries risk associated with the presence or absence of impacted wisdom teeth.One RCT with 164 randomised and 77 analysed adolescent participants compared the effect of extraction with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth on dimensional changes in the dental arch after five years. Participants (55% female) had previously undergone orthodontic treatment and had 'crowded' wisdom teeth. No evidence from this study, which was at high risk of bias, was found to suggest that removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth has a clinically significant effect on dimensional changes in the dental arch.The included studies did not measure our other secondary outcomes: costs, other adverse events associated with retention of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) and adverse effects associated with their removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth during surgery, bleeding, osteonecrosis related to medication/radiotherapy, inflammation/infection). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence is available to determine whether or not asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth should be removed. Although asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth may be associated with increased risk of periodontitis affecting adjacent second molars in the long term, the evidence is of very low quality. Well-designed RCTs investigating long-term and rare effects of retention and removal of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, in a representative group of individuals, are unlikely to be feasible. In their continuing absence, high quality, long-term prospective cohort studies may provide valuable evidence in the future. Given the lack of available evidence, patient values should be considered and clinical expertise used to guide shared decision making with patients who have asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth. If the decision is made to retain asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth, clinical assessment at regular intervals to prevent undesirable outcomes is advisable.

The role of mandibular proximal segment rotations on skeletal relapse and condylar remodelling following bilateral sagittal split advancement osteotomies.

PURPOSE: To quantify the postoperative rotation of the proximal segments in 3D and to assess its role on skeletal relapse and condylar remodelling following BSSO advancement surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 56 patients with mandibular hypoplasia who underwent BSSO advancement surgery were enrolled into the study. A CBCT scan was acquired preoperatively, at one week postoperatively and at one year postoperatively. After segmentation of the facial skeleton and condyles, 3D cephalometry and condylar volume analysis were performed. RESULTS: A mean mandibular advancement of 4.6 mm was found. 55% of the condyles decreased in volume postoperatively, with a mean reduction of 6.1 volume-percent. Among 11 patients who exhibited a clinically significant relapse of more than 2 mm, 10 patients exhibited a counterclockwise rotation of the proximal segments. The odds of skeletal relapse (>2 mm) was 4.8 times higher in patients whose proximal segments were rotated in a counterclockwise direction. Postoperative flaring (3.3 mm) and torque (0.3°) were, however, not associated with skeletal relapse or condylar remodelling. CONCLUSION: Gender, preoperative condylar volume, postoperative condylar remodelling, counterclockwise rotation of the proximal segment and the amount of surgical advancement were prognostic factors for skeletal relapse (r(2) = 0.83). The role of the mandibular plane angle in relapse is questionable.

3D analysis of condylar remodelling and skeletal relapse following bilateral sagittal split advancement osteotomies.

A major concern in mandibular advancement surgery using bilateral sagittal split osteotomies (BSSO) is potential postoperative relapse. Although the role of postoperative changes in condylar morphology on skeletal relapse was reported in previous studies, no study so far has objectified the precise changes of the condylar volume. The aim of the present study was to quantify the postoperative volume changes of condyles and its role on skeletal stability following BSSO mandibular advancement surgery. A total of 56 patients with mandibular hypoplasia who underwent BSSO advancement surgery were prospectively enrolled into the study. A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was acquired preoperatively, at 1 week postoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. After the segmentation of the facial skeleton and condyles, three-dimensional cephalometry and condylar volume analysis were performed. The mean mandibular advancement was 4.6 mm, and the mean postoperative relapse was 0.71 mm. Of 112 condyles, 55% showed a postoperative decrease in condylar volume, with a mean reduction of 105 mm(3) (6.1% of the original condylar volume). The magnitude of condylar remodelling (CR) was significantly correlated with skeletal relapse (p = 0.003). Patients with a CR greater than 17% of the original condylar volume exhibited relapse as seen in progressive condylar resorption. Female patients with a high mandibular angle who exhibited postoperative CR were particularly at risk for postoperative relapse. Gender, preoperative condylar volume, and downward displacement of pogonion at surgery were prognostic factors for CR (r(2) = 21%). It could be concluded that the condylar volume can be applied as a useful 3D radiographic parameter for the diagnosis and follow-up of postoperative skeletal relapse and progressive condylar resorption.

Accuracy of three-dimensional soft tissue simulation in bimaxillary osteotomies.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of an algorithm based on the mass tensor model (MTM) for computerized 3D simulation of soft-tissue changes following bimaxillary osteotomy, and to identify patient and surgery-related factors that may affect the accuracy of the simulation. Sixty patients (mean age 26.0 years) who had undergone bimaxillary osteotomy, participated in this study. Cone beam CT scans were acquired pre- and one year postoperatively. The 3D rendered pre- and postoperative scans were matched. The maxilla and mandible were segmented and aligned to the postoperative position. 3D distance maps and cephalometric analyses were used to quantify the simulation error. The mean absolute error between the 3D simulation and the actual postoperative facial profile was 0.81 ± 0.22 mm for the face as a whole. The accuracy of the simulation (average absolute error ≤2 mm) for the whole face and for the upper lip, lower lip and chin subregions were 100%, 93%, 90% and 95%, respectively. The predictability was correlated with the magnitude of the maxillary and mandibular advancement, age and V-Y closure. It was concluded that the MTM-based soft tissue simulation for bimaxillary surgery was accurate for clinical use, though patients should be informed of possible variation in the predicted lip position.