J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 31, No. 1, 28-33, March 2004 doi:10.1179/146531204225011337
© 2004 British Orthodontic Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ferguson, J. W.
Right arrow Articles by Pitt, S. K. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ferguson, J. W.
Right arrow Articles by Pitt, S. K. J.

Article

Management of unerupted maxillary canines where no orthodontic treatment is planned; a survey of UK consultant opinion

J. W. Ferguson and S. K. J. Pitt

Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK

Address for correspondence: Dr J. W. Ferguson, Orthodontic Department, Walsall Manor Hospital, Moat Road, Walsall, West Midlands WS2 9PS, UK. Email: jim.ferguson{at}walsallhospitals.nhs.uk

Objective: To assess current consultant opinion on the management of impacted maxillary canines in patients for whom no orthodontic treatment is planned.

Design: Questionnaire survey.

Method: Questionnaires were sent to all UK consultant orthodontists identified from the Consultant Orthodontists Group database. Follow-up questionnaires were sent to those who had not replied within 6 weeks. An overall response rate of 76% was achieved.

Results: Most consultants were in favor of intervention, with removal of the unerupted canine, although a significant minority suggested a conservative approach. Of the latter group, nearly all recommended radiographic monitoring, but there was little agreement regarding the frequency and duration of this. The risk of root resorption was stated to be the most important factor justifying monitoring.

Conclusions: Significant variation was found amongst UK consultant orthodontists with regard to the management of impacted canines, where orthodontic treatment was not planned. The clinical and radiographic features, which the respondents stated would influence their decision to remove or leave the canine, were not those that existing research suggests as being the primary risk factors. It is suggested that, once the patient has passed the peak age for initiation of resorption, a more conservative approach may be appropriate.

Key words: Unerupted canines, management






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 British Orthodontic Society.