BACKGROUND: Limited studies have proposed protocols for the management of failure of eruption (FOE) of permanent molars with no clear consensus or guidelines. Accurate diagnosis is challenging but key for successful management. AIMS: Confirm key diagnostic criteria that will aid diagnostic differentiation between primary failure of eruption (PFE) and mechanical failure of eruption (MFE) of permanent molars and identify successful management strategies. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study. Patients diagnosed with FOE of permanent molars (excluding impaction) between January 2003 and December 2013 were identified. Patient details and clinical and radiological features of FOE were recorded. Two examiners analysed the data. A diagnosis of PFE or MFE was made based on a combination of current protocols. Management strategies for each were identified and reported as satisfactory/unsatisfactory. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen were classified as PFE and 14 as MFE. One patient was too young to confirm diagnosis, and one patient had delayed eruption. A total of 26% of cases were misdiagnosed which led to unsuccessful orthodontic management. CONCLUSION: We propose a protocol based on the results of this study coupled with existing protocols in the form of a simple flow diagram to aid accurate diagnosis and management of this rare and challenging clinical problem.
BACKGROUND: Limited studies have proposed protocols for the management of failure of eruption (FOE) of permanent molars with no clear consensus or guidelines. Accurate diagnosis is challenging but key for successful management. AIMS: Confirm key diagnostic criteria that will aid diagnostic differentiation between primary failure of eruption (PFE) and mechanical failure of eruption (MFE) of permanent molars and identify successful management strategies. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study. Patients diagnosed with FOE of permanent molars (excluding impaction) between January 2003 and December 2013 were identified. Patient details and clinical and radiological features of FOE were recorded. Two examiners analysed the data. A diagnosis of PFE or MFE was made based on a combination of current protocols. Management strategies for each were identified and reported as satisfactory/unsatisfactory. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen were classified as PFE and 14 as MFE. One patient was too young to confirm diagnosis, and one patient had delayed eruption. A total of 26% of cases were misdiagnosed which led to unsuccessful orthodontic management. CONCLUSION: We propose a protocol based on the results of this study coupled with existing protocols in the form of a simple flow diagram to aid accurate diagnosis and management of this rare and challenging clinical problem.