| Literature DB >> 32341702 |
Asadullah Khan Mohammed1, Garepally Sravani1, Deepti Vallappareddy2, Annamaneni Rakesh Rao2, Arshad Qureshi2, Anisha N Prasad1.
Abstract
Our aim was to evaluate the location of impacted canines and their proximity to the lateral and central incisor to assess the prognosis of the impacted canine and compare the reliability of 2D versus 3D imaging solutions. We carried a prospective study on 17 subjects with impacted maxillary canines. Later, the patients underwent radiologic examination, i.e., sectional computed tomography and orthopantomography. The obtained records were compared regarding the location of the impacted maxillary canine, the proximity and resorption of the impacted canine to the lateral and central incisors, the prognosis of the impacted canine, and the linear distance of the canine from the vertical and horizontal reference lines drawn. Eleven males (45.8%) and 13 females (54.1%), 11 (45.8%) impacted canines on the right side, and 13 (54.1%) on the left side, as well as 2 (8.3%) transpositions, were noted. Buccally impacted teeth caused less resorption of the adjacent teeth. Among the 24 teeth examined using orthopantomography with the sector method, 3 (12.5%) teeth were found in sector 1. There were 8 (33.33%) teeth in sector 2, and 11 (45.8%) of the impacted canines were in sector 3. In localizing impacted maxillary canines, computed tomography revealed an increased accuracy of 31% compared to orthopantomography. Even though both computed tomography and orthopantomography revealed similar records, computed tomography showed more accuracy, also having an added advantage of its 3D viewing capabilities in precise localization of the impacted maxillary canine. ©Carol Davila University Press.Entities:
Keywords: Computed Tomography; Diagnosis; Impacted Canine; Orthodontist; Orthopantomograph
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32341702 PMCID: PMC7175446 DOI: 10.25122/jml-2020-0001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Life ISSN: 1844-122X
Figure 1:Sector method showing sectors 1, 2 and 3.
Incidences of right, left canines and transpositions.
| Canine | No. of teeth (24) | % of teeth |
|---|---|---|
| Right Canine | 11 | 45.8% |
| Left Canine | 13 | 54.1% |
| Transpositions | 2 | 8.3% |
Incisor resorption associated with 24 impacted canines.
| Incisors | Resorption | % of Resorption |
|---|---|---|
| Lateral incisor | 1 | 4% |
| Central incisor | 4 | 16% |
Distribution of impacted teeth in different sectors.
| Sector | No. of teeth | % of teeth |
|---|---|---|
| Sector 1 | 3 | 12.5% |
| Sector 2 | 8 | 33.33% |
Distribution of impacted teeth in different sectors.
| Sector | No. of teeth | % of teeth |
|---|---|---|
| Sector 1 | 3 | 12.5% |
| Sector 2 | 8 | 33.33% |
| Sector 3 | 11 | 45.8% |
Figure 2:Distribution of canines.
Figure 3:Linear distance from the midline to the cusp of the canine in a CT scan.
Figure 4:Linear distance from the occlusal plane to the cusp of the impacted canine in a CT scan.
Correlations between CT and OPG observations. A. Descriptive Statistics.
| Mean | Std. Deviation | N | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11.6250 | 5.95499 | 24 | |
| 14.1250 | 7.30879 | 24 | |
| 10.0250 | 4.41472 | 24 | |
| 12.0792 | 5.35480 | 24 |
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figure 5:Scatter plot CT vs. OPG, linear to occlusal.
Figure 6:Scatter plot CT vs. OPG, linear midline.
Figure 7:CT and OPG correlation.