Background: This review evaluates, as a primary outcome, which surgical technique (open vs. closed) and which type of material used for the auxiliaries (elastic vs. metallic) were preferable in terms of periodontal results during the treatment of palatal-impacted canines. The timing of the evaluation of the results was also assessed as a secondary outcome. Methods: An electronic search of the literature up to March 2021 was performed on Pubmed, MEDLINE (via Pubmed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Reviews and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (RCTs) (CENTRAL). The risk of bias evaluation was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs and the ACROBAT NRSI tool of Cochrane for non-RCTs. Results: 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only one RCT was assessed as having a low risk of bias and all the non-RCTs were assessed as having a serious risk of bias. This review revealed better periodontal results for the closed technique and metallic auxiliaries. In addition, it revealed that the timing of the evaluation of the results affects the periodontal results with better results obtained 2 years after the end of treatment. Conclusion: In the treatment of a palatal-impacted canine, the closed technique and metallic auxiliaries should be preferred in terms of better periodontal results. The timing of the evaluation of the results affects the periodontal results.

Periodontal results of different therapeutic approaches (open vs. closed technique) and timing evaluation (< 2 year vs. > 2 year) of palatal impacted canines: a systematic review / Guarnieri, R.; Bertoldo, S.; Cassetta, M.; Altieri, F.; Grenga, C.; Vichi, M.; Di Giorgio, R.; Barbato, E.. - In: BMC ORAL HEALTH. - ISSN 1472-6831. - 21:1(2021), p. 574. [10.1186/s12903-021-01937-x]

Periodontal results of different therapeutic approaches (open vs. closed technique) and timing evaluation (< 2 year vs. > 2 year) of palatal impacted canines: a systematic review

Guarnieri R.
Primo
Writing – Review & Editing
;
Bertoldo S.
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
Cassetta M.
Supervision
;
Altieri F.
Data Curation
;
Grenga C.
Methodology
;
Vichi M.
Formal Analysis
;
Di Giorgio R.
Penultimo
Project Administration
;
Barbato E.
Ultimo
Funding Acquisition
2021

Abstract

Background: This review evaluates, as a primary outcome, which surgical technique (open vs. closed) and which type of material used for the auxiliaries (elastic vs. metallic) were preferable in terms of periodontal results during the treatment of palatal-impacted canines. The timing of the evaluation of the results was also assessed as a secondary outcome. Methods: An electronic search of the literature up to March 2021 was performed on Pubmed, MEDLINE (via Pubmed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Reviews and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (RCTs) (CENTRAL). The risk of bias evaluation was performed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs and the ACROBAT NRSI tool of Cochrane for non-RCTs. Results: 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only one RCT was assessed as having a low risk of bias and all the non-RCTs were assessed as having a serious risk of bias. This review revealed better periodontal results for the closed technique and metallic auxiliaries. In addition, it revealed that the timing of the evaluation of the results affects the periodontal results with better results obtained 2 years after the end of treatment. Conclusion: In the treatment of a palatal-impacted canine, the closed technique and metallic auxiliaries should be preferred in terms of better periodontal results. The timing of the evaluation of the results affects the periodontal results.
2021
palatal impacted canine; periodontal results; surgical approach; therapeutic methods; cuspid; humans; tooth, impacted
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01g Articolo di rassegna (Review)
Periodontal results of different therapeutic approaches (open vs. closed technique) and timing evaluation (&lt; 2&nbsp;year vs. &gt; 2&nbsp;year) of palatal impacted canines: a systematic review / Guarnieri, R.; Bertoldo, S.; Cassetta, M.; Altieri, F.; Grenga, C.; Vichi, M.; Di Giorgio, R.; Barbato, E.. - In: BMC ORAL HEALTH. - ISSN 1472-6831. - 21:1(2021), p. 574. [10.1186/s12903-021-01937-x]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Guarnieri_Periodontal_2021.pdf

accesso aperto

Note: https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-021-01937-x
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.19 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.19 MB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1607087
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact