Abstract
In this example, in conducting reconstruction it is conjectured that there is a big difference, as far as treatment is concerned, between extracting the upper canine and preserving it.
Upon first considering the predominance of the canine in the occlusion, it was diagnosed that the canine stump could be preserved by orthodontic treatment and periodontal surgery. Finally, it was given the occlusional pattern of a mutually protected occlusion. In being preserved, the function that the canine naturally had was able to be revised. It is my conclusion that this resulted in a satisfactory occlusion.
