Open versus closed surgical exposure of palatally impacted maxillary canines: comparison of the different treatment outcomes—a systematic review

Summary Objective This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two different canine exposure techniques (open and closed) regarding periodontal outcomes, duration of surgical treatment and canine’s eruption, patient’s inconvenience, aesthetics, and orthodontic treatment complications. Search meth...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of orthodontics 2018-01, Vol.40 (1), p.11-22
Hauptverfasser: Sampaziotis, Dimitrios, Tsolakis, Ioannis A, Bitsanis, Elias, Tsolakis, Apostolos I
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 22
container_issue 1
container_start_page 11
container_title European journal of orthodontics
container_volume 40
creator Sampaziotis, Dimitrios
Tsolakis, Ioannis A
Bitsanis, Elias
Tsolakis, Apostolos I
description Summary Objective This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two different canine exposure techniques (open and closed) regarding periodontal outcomes, duration of surgical treatment and canine’s eruption, patient’s inconvenience, aesthetics, and orthodontic treatment complications. Search methods Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched for additional studies Selection criteria Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized clinical trials (Q-RCTs) and non-randomized trials of prospective and retrospective design with patients of any age that compared group with palatally impacted canines treated by open exposure to a similar group treated by closed exposure technique were selected. There was not any restriction in language or year of publication. Data collection and analysis Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed individually and in duplicate. Results Search strategy resulted in 159 articles and nine articles were selected for the final analysis. They were three non-randomized trials, one Q-RCT, and two reports of another Q-RCT and three reports of one RCT. The level of reported evidence was high for the RCT and one Q-RCT but poorer for the other trials. Four articles reported periodontal outcomes, three searched the duration of surgical procedure, two the duration of canine eruption, two investigated patient’s inconvenience, two reported on failure rates and two addressed aesthetic outcomes. The results are inconsistent and there is considerable disagreement for the majority of the outcomes among studies. Conclusion According to existing articles we may conclude that there is no difference between the two techniques regarding the periodontal outcomes and aesthetic appearance. The surgical procedure is shorter in the open exposure group and the amount of postoperative pain during the first day is similar between the open and closed surgical exposure patients. However, these conclusions are based on two single trials with high level of evidence, while the rest of the studies present high risk of bias.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/ejo/cjw077
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1905677817</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/ejo/cjw077</oup_id><sourcerecordid>1905677817</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-d524ac2b9da8b1fb620469f3d607330af8462b2951296a61f4b2a0b341627c1a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFO3DAQhi1UBAvl0geofKlUVQrYjmMnvSHU0kpIXNpzNHHG1KskTm0H2BvPgHhCnqReLeXIaWY03_zSPz8hHzg75awpz3Dtz8z6jmm9R1ZcKlYIwdk7smJc8qIqa31IjmJcM8bKWuoDcihqWauqVivyeD3jRG8xxCVSM_iIPY1LuHEGBor3s88DUm_pDAMkGIYNdeMMJmVuhHs3DBA21MDkJoxfqfF5GVz00_Ym_UHaO2sx4JRoCghp3HZ-SRnE-PzwBDRuYsIRkjM04K3Du_dk38IQ8eSlHpPf37_9uvhRXF1f_rw4vyqM5E0q-kpIMKJreqg7bjslmFSNLXvFdFkysLVUohNNxUWjQHErOwGsKyVXQhsO5TH5vNOdg_-7YEzt6KLB7GhCv8SWN6xSWtdcZ_TLDjXBxxjQtnNwY3bectZuM2hzBu0ugwx_fNFduhH7V_T_0zPwaQf4ZX5L6B-iWJRW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1905677817</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Open versus closed surgical exposure of palatally impacted maxillary canines: comparison of the different treatment outcomes—a systematic review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Sampaziotis, Dimitrios ; Tsolakis, Ioannis A ; Bitsanis, Elias ; Tsolakis, Apostolos I</creator><creatorcontrib>Sampaziotis, Dimitrios ; Tsolakis, Ioannis A ; Bitsanis, Elias ; Tsolakis, Apostolos I</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Objective This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two different canine exposure techniques (open and closed) regarding periodontal outcomes, duration of surgical treatment and canine’s eruption, patient’s inconvenience, aesthetics, and orthodontic treatment complications. Search methods Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched for additional studies Selection criteria Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized clinical trials (Q-RCTs) and non-randomized trials of prospective and retrospective design with patients of any age that compared group with palatally impacted canines treated by open exposure to a similar group treated by closed exposure technique were selected. There was not any restriction in language or year of publication. Data collection and analysis Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed individually and in duplicate. Results Search strategy resulted in 159 articles and nine articles were selected for the final analysis. They were three non-randomized trials, one Q-RCT, and two reports of another Q-RCT and three reports of one RCT. The level of reported evidence was high for the RCT and one Q-RCT but poorer for the other trials. Four articles reported periodontal outcomes, three searched the duration of surgical procedure, two the duration of canine eruption, two investigated patient’s inconvenience, two reported on failure rates and two addressed aesthetic outcomes. The results are inconsistent and there is considerable disagreement for the majority of the outcomes among studies. Conclusion According to existing articles we may conclude that there is no difference between the two techniques regarding the periodontal outcomes and aesthetic appearance. The surgical procedure is shorter in the open exposure group and the amount of postoperative pain during the first day is similar between the open and closed surgical exposure patients. However, these conclusions are based on two single trials with high level of evidence, while the rest of the studies present high risk of bias.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0141-5387</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1460-2210</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjw077</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28486586</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>UK: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Cuspid - surgery ; Esthetics, Dental ; Humans ; Orthodontics, Corrective - methods ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Tooth Eruption ; Tooth, Impacted - surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>European journal of orthodontics, 2018-01, Vol.40 (1), p.11-22</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 2017</rights><rights>The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-d524ac2b9da8b1fb620469f3d607330af8462b2951296a61f4b2a0b341627c1a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-d524ac2b9da8b1fb620469f3d607330af8462b2951296a61f4b2a0b341627c1a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1584,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28486586$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sampaziotis, Dimitrios</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsolakis, Ioannis A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bitsanis, Elias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsolakis, Apostolos I</creatorcontrib><title>Open versus closed surgical exposure of palatally impacted maxillary canines: comparison of the different treatment outcomes—a systematic review</title><title>European journal of orthodontics</title><addtitle>Eur J Orthod</addtitle><description>Summary Objective This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two different canine exposure techniques (open and closed) regarding periodontal outcomes, duration of surgical treatment and canine’s eruption, patient’s inconvenience, aesthetics, and orthodontic treatment complications. Search methods Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched for additional studies Selection criteria Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized clinical trials (Q-RCTs) and non-randomized trials of prospective and retrospective design with patients of any age that compared group with palatally impacted canines treated by open exposure to a similar group treated by closed exposure technique were selected. There was not any restriction in language or year of publication. Data collection and analysis Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed individually and in duplicate. Results Search strategy resulted in 159 articles and nine articles were selected for the final analysis. They were three non-randomized trials, one Q-RCT, and two reports of another Q-RCT and three reports of one RCT. The level of reported evidence was high for the RCT and one Q-RCT but poorer for the other trials. Four articles reported periodontal outcomes, three searched the duration of surgical procedure, two the duration of canine eruption, two investigated patient’s inconvenience, two reported on failure rates and two addressed aesthetic outcomes. The results are inconsistent and there is considerable disagreement for the majority of the outcomes among studies. Conclusion According to existing articles we may conclude that there is no difference between the two techniques regarding the periodontal outcomes and aesthetic appearance. The surgical procedure is shorter in the open exposure group and the amount of postoperative pain during the first day is similar between the open and closed surgical exposure patients. However, these conclusions are based on two single trials with high level of evidence, while the rest of the studies present high risk of bias.</description><subject>Cuspid - surgery</subject><subject>Esthetics, Dental</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Orthodontics, Corrective - methods</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Tooth Eruption</subject><subject>Tooth, Impacted - surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0141-5387</issn><issn>1460-2210</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcFO3DAQhi1UBAvl0geofKlUVQrYjmMnvSHU0kpIXNpzNHHG1KskTm0H2BvPgHhCnqReLeXIaWY03_zSPz8hHzg75awpz3Dtz8z6jmm9R1ZcKlYIwdk7smJc8qIqa31IjmJcM8bKWuoDcihqWauqVivyeD3jRG8xxCVSM_iIPY1LuHEGBor3s88DUm_pDAMkGIYNdeMMJmVuhHs3DBA21MDkJoxfqfF5GVz00_Ym_UHaO2sx4JRoCghp3HZ-SRnE-PzwBDRuYsIRkjM04K3Du_dk38IQ8eSlHpPf37_9uvhRXF1f_rw4vyqM5E0q-kpIMKJreqg7bjslmFSNLXvFdFkysLVUohNNxUWjQHErOwGsKyVXQhsO5TH5vNOdg_-7YEzt6KLB7GhCv8SWN6xSWtdcZ_TLDjXBxxjQtnNwY3bectZuM2hzBu0ugwx_fNFduhH7V_T_0zPwaQf4ZX5L6B-iWJRW</recordid><startdate>20180123</startdate><enddate>20180123</enddate><creator>Sampaziotis, Dimitrios</creator><creator>Tsolakis, Ioannis A</creator><creator>Bitsanis, Elias</creator><creator>Tsolakis, Apostolos I</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180123</creationdate><title>Open versus closed surgical exposure of palatally impacted maxillary canines: comparison of the different treatment outcomes—a systematic review</title><author>Sampaziotis, Dimitrios ; Tsolakis, Ioannis A ; Bitsanis, Elias ; Tsolakis, Apostolos I</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-d524ac2b9da8b1fb620469f3d607330af8462b2951296a61f4b2a0b341627c1a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Cuspid - surgery</topic><topic>Esthetics, Dental</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Orthodontics, Corrective - methods</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Tooth Eruption</topic><topic>Tooth, Impacted - surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sampaziotis, Dimitrios</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsolakis, Ioannis A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bitsanis, Elias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsolakis, Apostolos I</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of orthodontics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sampaziotis, Dimitrios</au><au>Tsolakis, Ioannis A</au><au>Bitsanis, Elias</au><au>Tsolakis, Apostolos I</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Open versus closed surgical exposure of palatally impacted maxillary canines: comparison of the different treatment outcomes—a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>European journal of orthodontics</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Orthod</addtitle><date>2018-01-23</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>11</spage><epage>22</epage><pages>11-22</pages><issn>0141-5387</issn><eissn>1460-2210</eissn><abstract>Summary Objective This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two different canine exposure techniques (open and closed) regarding periodontal outcomes, duration of surgical treatment and canine’s eruption, patient’s inconvenience, aesthetics, and orthodontic treatment complications. Search methods Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched for additional studies Selection criteria Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized clinical trials (Q-RCTs) and non-randomized trials of prospective and retrospective design with patients of any age that compared group with palatally impacted canines treated by open exposure to a similar group treated by closed exposure technique were selected. There was not any restriction in language or year of publication. Data collection and analysis Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed individually and in duplicate. Results Search strategy resulted in 159 articles and nine articles were selected for the final analysis. They were three non-randomized trials, one Q-RCT, and two reports of another Q-RCT and three reports of one RCT. The level of reported evidence was high for the RCT and one Q-RCT but poorer for the other trials. Four articles reported periodontal outcomes, three searched the duration of surgical procedure, two the duration of canine eruption, two investigated patient’s inconvenience, two reported on failure rates and two addressed aesthetic outcomes. The results are inconsistent and there is considerable disagreement for the majority of the outcomes among studies. Conclusion According to existing articles we may conclude that there is no difference between the two techniques regarding the periodontal outcomes and aesthetic appearance. The surgical procedure is shorter in the open exposure group and the amount of postoperative pain during the first day is similar between the open and closed surgical exposure patients. However, these conclusions are based on two single trials with high level of evidence, while the rest of the studies present high risk of bias.</abstract><cop>UK</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>28486586</pmid><doi>10.1093/ejo/cjw077</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0141-5387
ispartof European journal of orthodontics, 2018-01, Vol.40 (1), p.11-22
issn 0141-5387
1460-2210
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1905677817
source MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Cuspid - surgery
Esthetics, Dental
Humans
Orthodontics, Corrective - methods
Prospective Studies
Retrospective Studies
Tooth Eruption
Tooth, Impacted - surgery
Treatment Outcome
title Open versus closed surgical exposure of palatally impacted maxillary canines: comparison of the different treatment outcomes—a systematic review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T09%3A56%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Open%20versus%20closed%20surgical%20exposure%20of%20palatally%20impacted%20maxillary%20canines:%20comparison%20of%20the%20different%20treatment%20outcomes%E2%80%94a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20orthodontics&rft.au=Sampaziotis,%20Dimitrios&rft.date=2018-01-23&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.epage=22&rft.pages=11-22&rft.issn=0141-5387&rft.eissn=1460-2210&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ejo/cjw077&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1905677817%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1905677817&rft_id=info:pmid/28486586&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ejo/cjw077&rfr_iscdi=true