ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the changes of incisor root resorption associated with impacted maxillary canines and health of periodontal tissues around maxillary canines erupted with orthodontic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with a unilateral palatally impacted maxillary canine were included in the study. Cone-beam computed tomography images taken before and after orthodontic treatment were compared with the contralateral canines serving as control teeth. RESULTS: Root resorption was present in 10% of central and 40% of lateral incisors before treatment. After treatment, the incidence of resorption decreased. The thickness of the buccal bone surrounding the impacted canines was similar to that surrounding the contralateral canines, except in the apical area. Periodontal pocket depth and alveolar bone loss were greater for the impacted canine teeth than for the contralateral canines. CONCLUSIONS: Incisor root resorption associated with impacted canine teeth showed signs of repair after orthodontic treatment. Slight differences related to periodontal health were found between the previously impacted teeth and contralateral canine teeth.
Subject(s)
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography/methods , Cuspid/pathology , Maxilla , Root Resorption/etiology , Tooth, Impacted/complications , Tooth, Impacted/diagnostic imaging , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Cuspid/diagnostic imaging , Female , Humans , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted , Incisor/diagnostic imaging , Incisor/pathology , Male , Odontometry/methods , Root Resorption/diagnostic imaging , Tooth Eruption , Tooth Root/diagnostic imaging , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the arch width changes in patients treated fixed orthodontic mechanics without extraction (Group 1), with upper and lower first premolar extractions (Group 2), and with upper first premolar extraction only (Group 3). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted with pre- and post-treatment digital models from 240 patients. Anterior, middle, and posterior distances were measured on pre- and post-treatment models. At T1 measurements, the distance among the canine cusp tips, the second premolar buccal cusp tips, and the first molar mesiobuccal cusp tips were measured. In addition, the distance (D) between the intercanine and intermolar lines and the distance (D') between the interpremolar and intermolar lines were defined on the anatomic y-axis, and this distance was maintained in calculating posttreatment measurements (T2). Mandibular and maxillary arch width changes were evaluated within and between groups. RESULTS: Anterior, middle, and posterior arch widths increased significantly in Groups 1 and 3. Maxillary anterior and middle arch widths also increased in Group 2, but the increases were not statistically significant. Changes in maxillary anterior and middle arch widths were higher in Groups 1 and 3 when compared to Group 2. However, there was no statistically significant difference in mandibular arch changes between the groups. CONCLUSION: Extraction treatment mechanics did not cause narrow dental arches, but nonextraction treatment increased arch width in all 3 measurements. Treatments with only upper arch extraction showed similar results with nonextraction treatment.