Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 24, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Open and closed surgical exposure of palatally displaced canines: a cost-minimization analysis of a multicentre,
Margitha Björksved1,2,3, Linda Ryen4, Rune Lindsten5,6
1Department of Orthodontics, Public Dental Health Service, Eskilstuna, Sweden.
Objective:
To evaluate the costs of open and closed surgical exposure and subsequent orthodontic treatment for the correction of palatally displaced canines (PDCs).
Trial Design:
A multicentre, two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial.
Methods:
One hundred twenty adolescents between 9 and 16 years of age, from three orthodontic specialist centres, were randomized to one of the two surgical exposure interventions. The randomization was conducted according to a two-arm parallel group 1:1 allocation ratio, using computerized lists with block randomization. In both the surgical techniques, whole mucoperiosteal flaps were raised, and bone covering the PDCs was removed. In the open technique, glass ionomer was built up on the PDC crown - reaching above the mucosa through a hole punched in the flap - to allow the canine to erupt autonomously. After eruption, the canine was orthodontically moved above the mucosa. In the closed technique, an eyelet was bonded onto the PDC, the flap was repositioned and the canine was orthodontically moved beyond the mucosa. The trial ended when the PDC was successfully aligned in the dental arch.Cost analysis was performed including costs for surgery, orthodontic treatment, emergency visits, and material, as well as costs for transports and time spent in connection with every appointment.
Blinding:
Patients and caregivers could not be blinded due to obvious limitations of the clinical setting, while outcome assessors and data analysts were blinded.
Results:
A cost-minimization analysis was performed since both exposure groups succeeded equally well in terms of treatment effects. The two different surgical exposures and following orthodontic treatments did not differ significantly in terms of costs.
Generalizability And Limitations:
Costs are estimated in the Swedish setting, which needs to be considered if applying the results in other settings. Calculations of total cost do not include finishing, debonding, retention, and follow-up.
Conclusion:
There is no significant difference in costs between closed and open surgical exposure with following orthodontic treatments in PDCs.
Trial Registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02186548.
