OBJECTIVES: To propose invasive cervical root resorption (ICRR) as an unrecognized and/or overlooked etiologic factor in the failure of response of an impacted tooth to orthodontic traction and to underline the importance of cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for early and accurate diagnosis of ICRR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients (age 13-21 years) with impacted canines (15 canines) that had failed to respond to orthodontic forces and that exhibited ICRR formed the case series for this investigation. The initial diagnosis, treatment, clinical and radiographic expression of failure, and adverse effects on adjacent teeth were analyzed. RESULTS: Initial diagnosis had been performed on plane radiographs. The orthodontist was absent during surgery in 11 patients. Nine canines had been exposed by open procedures. ICRR was not related to the severity of impaction. Its diagnosis was made on existing radiographs, new films, and/or new CBCT. The severity of the lesions was Class 3 or 4, and the teeth were finally extracted. Loss of anchorage characterized 11 patients. Apical resorption of the roots of adjacent teeth was diagnosed in 9 patients. CONCLUSIONS: ICRR is a frequently undiagnosed or unrecognized cause of failure of orthodontic resolution of impacted canines and should be distinguished from replacement resorption. CBCT should be used for its early detection and accurate assessment of potential damage to adjacent anchor teeth.
OBJECTIVES: To propose invasive cervical root resorption (ICRR) as an unrecognized and/or overlooked etiologic factor in the failure of response of an impacted tooth to orthodontic traction and to underline the importance of cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) for early and accurate diagnosis of ICRR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients (age 13-21 years) with impacted canines (15 canines) that had failed to respond to orthodontic forces and that exhibited ICRR formed the case series for this investigation. The initial diagnosis, treatment, clinical and radiographic expression of failure, and adverse effects on adjacent teeth were analyzed. RESULTS: Initial diagnosis had been performed on plane radiographs. The orthodontist was absent during surgery in 11 patients. Nine canines had been exposed by open procedures. ICRR was not related to the severity of impaction. Its diagnosis was made on existing radiographs, new films, and/or new CBCT. The severity of the lesions was Class 3 or 4, and the teeth were finally extracted. Loss of anchorage characterized 11 patients. Apical resorption of the roots of adjacent teeth was diagnosed in 9 patients. CONCLUSIONS: ICRR is a frequently undiagnosed or unrecognized cause of failure of orthodontic resolution of impacted canines and should be distinguished from replacement resorption. CBCT should be used for its early detection and accurate assessment of potential damage to adjacent anchor teeth.
Authors: L Bergmans; J Van Cleynenbreugel; E Verbeken; M Wevers; B Van Meerbeek; P Lambrechts Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Vanessa C Jiménez Montenegro; Allan Jones; Peter Petocz; Carmen Gonzales; M Ali Darendeliler Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Simona Tecco; Mariano Lacarbonara; Maria Teresa Dinoi; Gianni Gallusi; Enrico Marchetti; Stefano Mummolo; Vincenzo Campanella; Giuseppe Marzo Journal: J Med Case Rep Date: 2014-10-09