Nicolas Arboleda-Ariza1, Juan Schilling2, Luis Ernesto Arriola-Guillén3, Gustavo Armando Ruíz-Mora4, Yalil Augusto Rodríguez-Cárdenas5, Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo6. 1. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú; Division of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia. Electronic address: arboledanicolas@gmail.com. 2. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru. 3. Divisions of Orthodontics and Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru. 4. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Lima, Perú and Division of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. 5. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Lima, Perú and Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. 6. Department of Orthodontics, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the maxillary transverse dimensions between subjects with impacted maxillary canines and subjects without canine impactions, with similar vertical and sagittal features. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 86 cone-beam computed tomography images of subjects with impacted maxillary canines (45 unilateral, 41 bilateral) and 67 images of subjects without dental impactions (control group) matched by similar vertical (NSAr, SArGo, ArGoMe) and sagittal (ANB, SNA, APDI) skeletal characteristics, were analyzed. The maxillary width was measured at 4 levels: first molar basal width, first molar alveolar width, first premolar basal width, and first premolar alveolar width. Group comparisons were performed with analysis of variance and post-hoc Scheffé tests. The influence of group features on the transverse dimensions was evaluated by a multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Groups with unilateral and bilateral impacted maxillary canines showed significantly smaller first molar basal widths, first molar alveolar widths, and first premolar alveolar widths compared with the control group (P = 0.030, P <0.001, and P <0.001, respectively). First premolar basal widths were not significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with unilateral or bilateral impacted maxillary canines have smaller maxillary transverse dimensions than do subjects without impaction. Orthodontists should consider the relationship of maxillary width and canine impaction during diagnosis and treatment planning.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the maxillary transverse dimensions between subjects with impacted maxillary canines and subjects without canine impactions, with similar vertical and sagittal features. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 86 cone-beam computed tomography images of subjects with impacted maxillary canines (45 unilateral, 41 bilateral) and 67 images of subjects without dental impactions (control group) matched by similar vertical (NSAr, SArGo, ArGoMe) and sagittal (ANB, SNA, APDI) skeletal characteristics, were analyzed. The maxillary width was measured at 4 levels: first molar basal width, first molar alveolar width, first premolar basal width, and first premolar alveolar width. Group comparisons were performed with analysis of variance and post-hoc Scheffé tests. The influence of group features on the transverse dimensions was evaluated by a multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Groups with unilateral and bilateral impacted maxillary canines showed significantly smaller first molar basal widths, first molar alveolar widths, and first premolar alveolar widths compared with the control group (P = 0.030, P <0.001, and P <0.001, respectively). First premolar basal widths were not significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with unilateral or bilateral impacted maxillary canines have smaller maxillary transverse dimensions than do subjects without impaction. Orthodontists should consider the relationship of maxillary width and canine impaction during diagnosis and treatment planning.