Increase of adjacent teeth tip, reducing the space for the non-erupted incisor. 3. Alteration of the eruptive path (deviation and delay) of the ipsilateral canine [10]. The treatment options for impacted incisors include:  
1. Extraction of the impacted tooth followed by a prosthetic rehabilitation [22; 23; 24];
2. Extraction and repositioning of the lateral incisor in place of the central incisor with mesial canine and premolar movement, then coronoplasty;(3) Surgical-orthodontic recovery of the incisor [25; 26]. Most of the patients requiring impacted central incisors treatment are less than 12 years old; for this reason, the prosthetic solution is not suitable. The extraction of the affected tooth would lead to a severe loss of alveolar bone, compromising the future insertion of an implant [18]. On the other side, the surgical-orthodontic solution allows complete alignment of natural teeth and does not require the creation of a prosthesis [25; 26]. Treatment success rates depend on several factors:  
1. The angle between impacted incisor and midline (if greater than 20 degrees, there are greater difficulties in treatment and a worse prognosis);
2. The level of the crown of the impacted tooth compared to the eruptive age;
3. The distance of the impacted incisor from the occlusal plane [8; 25; 27; 28]. A study has verified that performing a rapid expansion with a Rapid Maximly Expander (RME) immediately after the obstacle removal leads to an 82% chance of problem resolution with the eruption of the impacted element after 6-7 months from the obstacle removal, while without applying the RME, the percentages are reduced by 39% [25; 29; 30]. Several surgical techniques are commonly used to expose the maxillary teeth. One technique is the apical repositioning flap. It consists of the apical repositioning of a raised full-thickness-flap above the included tooth, leaving the element uncovered. Another technique is the closed eruption. It involves lifting a full-thickness flap, fixing an orthodontic bracket on the tooth surface, and then completely covering the tooth and bracket with tissue. These techniques offer some advantages when pulling impacted teeth [10; 31; 32]. The apically repositioned flap technique allows prompt reattachment of the bracket if unintentional detachment occurs. However, the closed eruption technique provides the most aesthetically pleasing result. This technique is most reliable when considering aesthetic and periodontal health. [PERSON] et al., recommended using the closed eruption technique when the tooth is in the center of the socket or when it is high, near the nasal spine. In these cases, the periodontal state of the exposed teeth after orthodontic treatment usually revealed an acceptable gingival profile and good adherent gingiva, an increase in bone level on the mesial, vestibular and distal surfaces, requiring no further mucogingival surgery [33]. Since many variables affect the recovery of an included tooth in a child after removing the supernumerary elements or the odontoma, most studies believe orthodontic treatment is necessary rather than waiting for the spontaneous eruption [8; 25; 34]. The treatment of impacted central incisors requires a different approach, and it is longer and more complicated, with the resolution of extraction with subsequent prosthetic rehabilitation as a valid alternative [35]. According to the latest literature data, the approach for this type of issue is mainly oriented to surgical-orthodontic treatments [36; 37]. Undoubtedly, the best treatment choice is conservative, and it requires careful planning and close collaboration between orthodontists, oral surgeons and periodontitis. Studies report that the prognosis of orthodontic-surgical treatment of impacted incisors is good, and failures occur when the etiology of the inclusion is dilaceration [36]. The treatment is relatively long, approximately two years, and is influenced by the initial height of the tooth included in the jaw [38].