Orthodontic Treatment of Impacted Teeth. Adrian Becker

Kieferorthop 2007; 39: 111–115.

      16 16. Melsen B, Fiorelli G, Bergamini A. Uprighting of lower molars. J Clin Orthod 1996; 30(11): 640–645.

      17 17. Jacoby H. The ‘ballista spring’ system for impacted teeth. Am J Orthod 1978; 75: 143–151.

      18 18. Caprioglio A. A new device for forced eruption of palatally impacted canines. J Clin Orthod 2004; 38: 342–347.

      19 19. Caprioglio A, Siani L, Caprioglio C. Guided eruption of palatally impacted canines through combined use of 3‐dimensional computerized tomography scans and the easy cuspid device. World J Orthod 2007; 8: 109–121.

      20 20. Yadav S, Chen J, Upadhyay M, Jiang F, Roberts WE. Comparison of the force systems of 3 appliances on palatally impacted canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011; 139: 206–213.

      21 21. Kornhauser S, Abed Y, Harari D, Becker A. The resolution of palatally impacted canines using palatal‐occlusal force from a buccal auxiliary. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 528–534.

      22 22. Schubert M. A new technique for forced eruption of impacted teeth. J Clin Orthod 2008; XLII: 175–179.

      23 23. Schubert M, Kirschneck C, Proff P. Einstellung ektoper Zaehne im Front‐ und Seitenzahnbereich. Quintessenz 2014; 65: 841–851.

      24 24. Schubert M, Proff P, Kirschneck C. Successful treatment of multiple bilateral impactions – a case report. Head Face Med 2016; 12: 24.

      25 25. Fok J, Toogood RW, Badawi H, Carey JP, Major PW. Analysis of maxillary arch force/couple systems for a simulated high canine malocclusion: Part 1. Passive ligation. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 953–959.

      26 26. Fok J, Toogood RW, Badawi H, Carey JP, Major PW. Analysis of maxillary arch force/couple systems for a simulated high canine malocclusion: Part 2. Elastic ligation. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 960–965.

      27 27. Fuck L‐M, Wiechmann D, Drescher D. Comparison of the initial orthodontic force systems produced by a new lingual bracket system and a straight‐wire appliance. J Orofac Orthop 2005; 66: 363–376.

      28 28. Montasser MA, Keilig L, Bourauel C. Archwire diameter effect on tooth alignment with different bracket‐archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2016; 149: 76–83.

      29 29. Jayade V, Annigeri S, Jayade C, Thawani P. Biomechanics of torque from twisted rectangular archwires. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 214–220.

      30 30. De Angelis V, Davidovitch Z. Variation in torque expression in preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2004; 126: A19–A20.

      31 31. Yadav S, Upadhyay M, Uribe F, Nanda R. Mechanics for treatment of impacted and ectopically erupted maxillary canines. J Clin Orthod 2013; XLVII: 305–313.

      32 32. Sander C, Roberts WE, Sander FG, Sander FM. Reprogramming the memory of superelastic nickel titanium archwires. J Clin Orthod 2009; XLIII: 90–96.

4 Diagnostic Imaging for Impacted Teeth

       Adrian Becker, Amnon Leitner and Stella Chaushu

        Planar radiography

        Computerized tomography

        Cone beam computerized tomography

      It is not the purpose of this chapter to present a complete manual on dental radiography, but rather to highlight concisely those techniques and methods that are useful in the clinical setting, as they pertain to impacted teeth.

      The methods offered have two main aims [1, 2]. The first relates to the furnishing of qualitative information regarding normal and abnormal conditions that may be associated with unerupted teeth. Thus, we will discuss and compare the different ways of radiologically displaying and recognizing pathological entities, including supernumerary teeth, enlarged eruption follicles, odontomes and root resorption. The second aim is to describe the various radiological techniques that the clinician may find helpful in accurately pinpointing the position of a clinically invisible, unerupted tooth in the three planes of space. The relative merits of these techniques are discussed and indications for their use are suggested in relation to the different groups of teeth concerned.

Planar radiography

       Periapical radiographs

      The first, simplest and most informative radiograph is the periapical view. This view is oriented to pass through the minimum of surrounding tissue, in order to give accuracy and quality of resolution. There are two techniques to review: the paralleling technique and the bisecting technique. In the paralleling technique, the receptor, which is a sensor or phosphor storage plate (PSP), is placed as close to the tooth as possible, but parallel to its long axis, with the X‐ray beam directed perpendicular to it. In areas where the parallel technique is impossible due to poor access, the bisecting angle technique is used, in which the receptor is placed as close to the tooth as possible, but not parallel to its long axis. The X‐ray beam is aimed perpendicular to an imaginary plane, which bisects the angle between the long axis of an erupted tooth and the plane of the receptor, thus ensuring a minimum of distortion. The periapical radiograph is designed to view the tooth itself from the angle of best advantage, unrelated to its position in space.

      From the periapical view, it will be immediately obvious if there is an impacted tooth and if its stage of development is similar to that of its erupted antimere, with at least two‐thirds of its root length. The presence and size of a follicle will be obvious and crown or root resorption, root pattern and integrity will be possible to ascertain. The presence and description of hard tissue obstruction will be evident, allowing the observer to distinguish connate, incisiform and barrel‐shaped supernumeraries, as well as odontomes of the complex or compound composite type. Similarly, this view will show soft tissue lesions, such as cysts. The great clarity that the view offers is superior to other views and should always be used as the initial radiograph of a suspected impacted tooth in a radiographic examination. The periapical view is two‐dimensional, and thus can give no information in the bucco‐lingual plane. Overlapping structures cannot be differentiated on a single radiograph as to which is lingual and which buccal.

      For this radiograph to give the most advantageous view of the teeth in the maxillary arch and in the mandibular anterior segment, the central ray of the periapical view must be oblique and vary between 20° and 55° to the occlusal plane [3] (depending on the region to be X‐rayed), while attempting to be as true to the paralleling technique as possible. Given this oblique direction, any attempt to estimate the height of an impacted tooth or its bucco‐lingual location, without additional information, must fail.

      When performing periapical radiography on the posterior teeth in the mandibular arch, however, the most advantageous direction has the central ray very close to the horizontal and, as such, also offers a true lateral view of these teeth. Thus, except for the bucco‐lingual situation details, the observer will see the most precise detail of the tooth and its surrounding tissues; it will also be possible to accurately assess its height in the jaw.

       Occlusal radiographs

      Mandibular arch

Occlusal radiographs in the mandibular arch are properly executed by tipping the patient’s head backwards and pointing the X‐ray tube at right angles to a receptor held between the teeth in the occlusal plane (Figure 4.1). The head will need to be tipped back to permit the positioning of the X‐ray tube under the chin. In the lower canine/premolar region, the occlusal view is a ‘true’