The surgical removal of an impacted canine: diagnosis, investigations and technique Zarish Rahman Hamnah Azam Bilal Ahmed Dental Update 2024 45:8, 707-709.
Authors
ZarishRahman
BDS(Hons), MFDS, PGCert(Dent Ed)
Orthodontic Specialty Registrar, Birmingham Dental Hospital, 5 Mill Pool Way, Birmingham B5 7EG, UK
Impacted canines occur in 1.7% of the population. These cases may be seen in general practice for further referral to an orthodontist or oral surgeon. Diagnosis often involves clinical examination, palpation and radiographic imaging to ascertain the location and association with anatomical structures. By using a clinical case, this paper aims to demonstrate one conservative way of managing the removal of impacted maxillary canines.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Canine impactions can cause resorption to adjacent teeth. They may require orthodontic traction to be brought into alignment but in some cases surgical removal is necessary.
Article
The surgical removal of impacted maxillary canines is a commonly performed procedure in oral surgery. Indications for this procedure include impacted canines causing root resorption or hindrance of eruption of other teeth and canines undergoing cystic change.1,2 During this process, diagnosis and investigation are achieved through clinical examination, palpation and radiographic imaging. Clinicians routinely use the horizontal or vertical parallax technique which involves using radiographic images taken at different angulations. This is usually performed to help determine the location of the impacted tooth. High quality radiographic imaging in the maxillary incisal region may also help identify local anatomical features, such as the nasopalatine foramen. It is important to identify such features during the surgical treatment planning stages.
A 19-year-old female was referred to the oral surgery department for the orthodontic extractions of her retained URC and ULC to aid management of her impacted canines.3 Upon clinical and radiographic investigations, it was determined that the maxillary canines were positioned unfavourably and would not be suitable for orthodontic extrusion; thus needing to be surgically removed.4 The patient had an underlying skeletal malocclusion that required a bimaxillary osteotomy. However, the patient was not keen on orthognathic surgery. Thus it was agreed by the orthodontist and patient to mask her bimaxillary proclination with orthodontic camouflage, by removing her impacted canines and bringing her maxillary first premolars anteriorly to mimic canines.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits: