AIM: The incidence of impacted maxillary canines in Caucasians reportedly ranges from 1% to 3%. The objectives of this study were to estimate the prevalence and determine the characteristics of impacted maxillary canines in southern Chinese children and adolescents. METHODS: This retrospective audit involved 533 subjects with impacted maxillary canines that had been treated between February 1982 and February 2009. A customized data entry form was prepared to record and evaluate the status of impacted canines. RESULTS: The 533 subjects (327 females and 206 males) with impacted maxillary canines, who were identified from the population of 26 039 subjects, represented a prevalence of 2.1%. Four hundred and forty-two (82.9%) of these subjects had unilaterally impacted canines, while 91 (17.1%) of them had bilateral impactions. In 442 subjects with unilateral canine impactions, 220 (49.8%) were buccally placed, 194 (43.9%) were palatally placed, and 28 (6.3%) of the canines were found to lie within the arch. CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of impacted maxillary canines in this study of 2.1% was similar to the figures quoted for Caucasian populations. In subjects with unilateral impactions, buccally impacted canines demonstrated a slightly higher incidence (49.8%) compared to palatally impacted canines (43.9%).
AIM: The incidence of impacted maxillary canines in Caucasians reportedly ranges from 1% to 3%. The objectives of this study were to estimate the prevalence and determine the characteristics of impacted maxillary canines in southern Chinese children and adolescents. METHODS: This retrospective audit involved 533 subjects with impacted maxillary canines that had been treated between February 1982 and February 2009. A customized data entry form was prepared to record and evaluate the status of impacted canines. RESULTS: The 533 subjects (327 females and 206 males) with impacted maxillary canines, who were identified from the population of 26 039 subjects, represented a prevalence of 2.1%. Four hundred and forty-two (82.9%) of these subjects had unilaterally impacted canines, while 91 (17.1%) of them had bilateral impactions. In 442 subjects with unilateral canine impactions, 220 (49.8%) were buccally placed, 194 (43.9%) were palatally placed, and 28 (6.3%) of the canines were found to lie within the arch. CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of impacted maxillary canines in this study of 2.1% was similar to the figures quoted for Caucasian populations. In subjects with unilateral impactions, buccally impacted canines demonstrated a slightly higher incidence (49.8%) compared to palatally impacted canines (43.9%).