P Bollero1, C Danesi2, M R Ricchiuti2, A Milazzo2, G Mampieri2, C Agrestini2, M Mucedero2. 1. Department of Systems Medicine, "Tor Vergata" University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, "Tor Vergata" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to evaluate the periodontal status of palatally and buccally impacted canines exposed with closed technique, and to compare them with the controlateral canines that served as control teeth as well as to compare them each other. METHODS: 28 patients, 14 with unilateral palatally impacted canines and 14 with unilateral buccally impacted canines comprised the subjects of the study. Mean recall observational period was 2 years 4 months ± 1 year 1 month. Closed eruption technique without the tunnel was performed to expose both the palatally and the buccally impacted canines. Six periodontal variables were considered: probing pocket depth (PPD); width of keratinized tissue (KT); gingival thickness (GT); plaque index (PI); gingival bleeding index (GBI); gingival recession (REC). RESULTS: Palatally impacted canines exhibited significant greater PPD on the mesiolingual site compared to their controlaterals (P<0.05). Buccally impacted canines had significant increased KT compared to their contralaterals (P<0.05). Palatally impacted canines had significant greater PPD on the midbuccal site and on all the palatal sites when compared to the buccally impacted canines (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The changes observed in the periodontal status of impacted canines, although statistically significant, did not reach clinical significance.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to evaluate the periodontal status of palatally and buccally impacted canines exposed with closed technique, and to compare them with the controlateral canines that served as control teeth as well as to compare them each other. METHODS: 28 patients, 14 with unilateral palatally impacted canines and 14 with unilateral buccally impacted canines comprised the subjects of the study. Mean recall observational period was 2 years 4 months ± 1 year 1 month. Closed eruption technique without the tunnel was performed to expose both the palatally and the buccally impacted canines. Six periodontal variables were considered: probing pocket depth (PPD); width of keratinized tissue (KT); gingival thickness (GT); plaque index (PI); gingival bleeding index (GBI); gingival recession (REC). RESULTS: Palatally impacted canines exhibited significant greater PPD on the mesiolingual site compared to their controlaterals (P<0.05). Buccally impacted canines had significant increased KT compared to their contralaterals (P<0.05). Palatally impacted canines had significant greater PPD on the midbuccal site and on all the palatal sites when compared to the buccally impacted canines (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The changes observed in the periodontal status of impacted canines, although statistically significant, did not reach clinical significance.
Entities:
Keywords:
closed surgical technique; impacted canines; periodontal health