Comparison of Open and Closed Surgical Exposure Techniques for Impacted Maxillary Canines
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v7i1.2297Keywords:
Impacted maxillary canine, open surgical exposure, closed surgical exposure, orthodontic traction, postoperative pain, operative time.Abstract
Impacted maxillary canines are commonly managed through surgical exposure followed by orthodontic traction. Open and closed exposure techniques are widely used, but their comparative benefits regarding operative efficiency and postoperative morbidity remain clinically relevant. Objective: To compare open and closed surgical exposure techniques for impacted maxillary canines. Methods: This study was conducted on 44 patients, aged 18 years or above, both male and females with impacted maxillary canines, patients were enrolled using non probability consecutive sampling. Patients with diabetes, bleeding disorders and immune deficiencies were excluded. Patients were divided in two groups equally at Kohat institute of Dental sciences, Kohat. Group A underwent open surgical exposure technique while group B patients underwent closed surgical exposure technique, Postoperative pain was measured at 24 hours using a ten point visual analogue scale. Operative time, analgesic need, intraoperative and postoperative bleeding, bonding failure, hanging chain discomfort and impaction laterality were also recorded. Data were analyzed using SPSS 28. Results: The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (27.14±5.15 minutes) than closed group (34.77±6.11 minutes; p<0.001). Postoperative pain at 24 hours was lower in the closed group (3.23±0.81) than open group (4.09±1.66, p = 0.034). Postoperative bleeding occurred in 5 (22.7%) patients in open group and none in the closed group (p=0.018). Conclusion: Open surgical exposure technique had significantly shorter operative time as compared to close technique, however closed exposure technique was associated with significantly lower postoperative pain and less postoperative bleeding.
Downloads
References
1. Grisar K, Denoiseux B, Martin C, Hoppenreijs T, Calburean F, Politis C, et al. Treatment for critically impacted maxillary canines: clinical versus scientific evidence - a systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;123(3):e12-e19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.03.013
2. Yang JS, Cha JY, Lee JY, Choi SH. Radiographical characteristics and traction duration of impacted maxillary canine requiring surgical exposure and orthodontic traction: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):19183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23232-7
3. Dhawan P, Rani S, Chadha S. Clinical considerations and management of a labially impacted maxillary canine with immediate implant placement and alveolar bone reconstruction: a case report. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e71529. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.71529
4. Hu LR, Qi WT, Bao CY, Pan J, Liu X. Dental follicles promote soft tissue management in surgical exposure of labially impacted maxillary canine. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01922-4
5. Ceraulo S, Barbarisi A, Oliva B, Moretti S, Caccianiga G, Lauritano D, et al. Treatment options in impacted maxillary canines: a literature review. Dent J (Basel). 2025;13(9):433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13090433
6. Guarnieri R, Bertoldo S, Cassetta M, Altieri F, Grenga C, Vichi M, et al. 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. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01937-x
7. Makhanu MN, Alsadig MAM, Nyongesa BS, Weboko FI, Alcorta PP. Unsuccessful closed surgical exposure of an impacted maxillary canine managed by open surgical exposure. J Kenya Dent Assoc. 2021;12(2):946-951.
8. Goh PKT, Nguyen H, Olive R. Treatment duration for impacted maxillary canines: a comparison between surgical exposure and conservative non-surgical orthodontic space opening. Australas Orthod J. 2025;41(1):392-405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2025-0038
9. Luyten J, Grisar K, Opdebeeck H, Jacobs R, Politis C. A retrospective long-term pulpal, periodontal, and esthetic follow-up of palatally impacted canines treated with an open or closed surgical exposure technique using the Maxillary Canine Aesthetic Index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;158(4):e29-e36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.11.014
10. Faerovig LF, Bjornland T, Magnusson A, Lindsten R, Pandis N, Bjerklin K, et al. Closed vs open surgical exposure of palatally displaced canines: patients' perceptions of recovery, operating time, and complications: a 2-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2025;167(4):382-398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2024.11.014
11. Bari MA, Wajdan N, Tariq, Kanju AH, Khan MA, Liaquat S. Comparison of open and close exposure with orthodontic traction of impacted maxillary canine in orthodontic treatments. Pak J Health Sci. 2025;6(1):69-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v6i1.2221
12. Sampaziotis D, Tsolakis IA, Bitsanis E, Tsolakis AI. Open versus closed surgical exposure of palatally impacted maxillary canines: comparison of the different treatment outcomes: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40(1):11-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw077
13. Khan UQ, Raza A, Shaikh Q, Nazir S, Ambreen N. Pathologies associated with impacted maxillary canine tooth in patients presenting at a tertiary care hospital. Int J Res Med Sci. 2021;9(1):34-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20205661
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gul e Laila, Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Zubair
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
