Skeletal and dentoalveolar dimensions in unilateral impacted canınes, a cone beam computed tomography study

Abstract

Purpose: To compare skeletal and dentoalveolar measurements of subjects with unilateral impacted canine versus the non-impacted contralateral side using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: 30 CBCTs with unilaterally impacted maxillary canines (Buccal=15, Palatal=15) were selected. Skeletal and dentoalveolar variables (alveolar ridge height of incisors, dentoalveolar height, angulations of incisors and canines, basal lateral width and premolar width) were compared between the impacted and the contralateral sides. Independent t-test was used to compare the variables. Results: There was a significant difference in the mean basal lateral width between the impacted (28.25±1.83 mm) and non-impacted (31.64±2.18 mm) sides. Premolar width was significantly lower on the impacted side (p<0.05). The canines exhibited significantly greater angulations on the impacted side compared to the nonimpacted side. The basal lateral width was significantly higher in the buccal subgroup (29.03±1.65mm) compared to palatal (27.48±1.70mm) on the impacted side. The intra-operator reliability was found to be high (0.99%). Conclusion: Significant differences were seen in canine angulation, premolar width and basal lateral width between impacted vs. non impacted sides. Basal lateral width was higher in buccal impacted cases compared to palatal.

Skeletal and dental maxillary morphological characteristics in patients with impacted canines: systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The BLW was studied in two split-mouth design studies [ 16 , 17 ]. In both cases, BLW was measured as the distance between the anterior nasal spine and the outermost dentoalveolar rim on the side of the impacted canine and the side without impaction.…”

“…The mean BLW on the impacted side ranged from 19 ± 2.55 mm to 30.9 ± 1.41 mm and on the non-impacted side from 19.7 ± 2.29 mm to 27.5 ± 1.7 mm. Only one study reported a statistically significant outcome [ 16 ]. The meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in the BLW between impacted and non-impacted sides ( Supplementary Figure S1 ).…”

“…Five studies [ 16 , 17 , 19–21 ] reported on BPMW: distance from the middle palatine raphe to proximal alveolar bone crest between the canine (deciduous or permanent) and first premolar on each side, measured on the axial cut at bone crest level. The mean BPMW on the impacted sides of two split-mouth studies [ 16 , 17 ] ranged from 12.7 ± 2.25 mm to 18.5 ± 2.44 mm and from 14.7 ± 2.00 mm to 16.5 ± 2.43 mm on the non-impacted sides. A meta-analysis revealed a non-significant difference in the BPMW between impacted and non-impacted sides [ 16 , 17 ] ( Supplementary Figure S1 ).…”

“…The mean BPMW on the impacted sides of two split-mouth studies [ 16 , 17 ] ranged from 12.7 ± 2.25 mm to 18.5 ± 2.44 mm and from 14.7 ± 2.00 mm to 16.5 ± 2.43 mm on the non-impacted sides. A meta-analysis revealed a non-significant difference in the BPMW between impacted and non-impacted sides [ 16 , 17 ] ( Supplementary Figure S1 ).…”

“…Two studies reported on ADH [ 16 , 17 ]. This parameter was characterized as a distance from the upper central (ADH-CI) and lateral (ADH-LI) incisor edges to the floor of the nostrils on the side of the impacted canine and the side without impaction by drawing a straight line parallel to the midsagittal plane.…”