Skip to main content
Progress in Orthodontics
Download PDF

Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary basal and dentoalveolar dimensions in patients with and without maxillary impacted canines

Progress in Orthodontics volume 23, Article number: 38 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to three-dimensionally evaluate the qualitative and quantitative maxillary basal, dentoalveolar, and dental dimensions in patients with unilateral or bilateral maxillary impacted canines relative to their normal peers.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective comparative study. Cone-beam computed tomography images of one hundred and fifty adult patients were divided into three equal groups: unilateral, bilateral, and control groups. Each had 50 patients that were three-dimensionally analysed. The quantitative measurements involved three basal (molar basal width, premolar basal width, and arch depth), seven dentoalveolar (molar alveolar width, premolar alveolar width, inter-molar width, inter-premolar width, inter-canine width, arch length, and arch perimeter), and two dental (canine length and width) measurements. The qualitative measurements included four bone density areas (buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal) around the maxillary impacted canines.

Result

Differences between the three groups were statistically different for the quantitative measurements involving the two basal variables (molar basal width and premolar basal width) and all measured dentoalveolar variables; these were smaller in the unilateral and bilateral groups compared with the control group (p < 0.001). Unilateral and bilateral impacted canine groups showed significantly wider and shorter canines than the control group (p < 0.001). The qualitative measurements (the four bone density areas) around unilateral and bilateral impacted canine groups showed significantly greater density than the control group (p < 0.001). There was no significant qualitative or quantitative difference between the unilateral and bilateral impacted canines. The three groups had no significant variations in terms of arch depth.

Conclusion

Maxillary unilateral and bilateral canine impactions are associated with reduced basal and dentoalveolar dimensions as well as wider and shorter maxillary canines compared to normal peers. The quality of bone around unilateral and bilateral impacted maxillary canines is higher than in non-impacted cases. Unilateral and bilateral canine impactions have quite similar qualitative and quantitative parameters.

Background

Impacted maxillary canines are a prevalent orthodontic clinical finding; the morphologic differences in the maxillofacial and dentoalveolar tissues could be linked to this dental eruption anomaly [1]. The maxillary canine is the third-most impacted tooth following the maxillary and mandibular third molars [2]. In Caucasian patients, the majority of affected canines are palatally displaced [3], but buccally displaced cases are more common in Asian patients [4]. It has been estimated that 1 to 3% of the general population suffers from maxillary persistent canine impaction [5], with unilateral cases being more prevalent than bilateral impaction [6]. Female patients are more likely to experience impaction, and some researchers report that it occurs twice as frequently as male patients [5, 6].

At least two theories characterize the aetiology of palatally impacted canines: genetic theory [7] and guiding theory [8]. The genetic theory implicates genetic factors as the primary cause of palatally displaced maxillary canines as well as other potentially related dental abnormalities [3]. According to guiding theory, the canine erupts along the root of the lateral incisor, which acts as a guide. The canine will not erupt if the root of the lateral incisor is missing or deformed [9]. In contrast, dental crowding appears to be the cause of labially impacted canines [10]. Palatally displaced canines are two to three times more common than labially impacted canines [5].

It was reported that the sequelae of canine impaction included: malposition of the impacted tooth, either labial or lingual, adjacent tooth migration, arch length loss, internal resorption, formation of dentigerous cyst, external root resorption of the impacted tooth and adjacent teeth, infection, especially with partial eruption, as well as referred pain and combinations of the aforementioned sequelae [11]. These potential issues highlight the necessity of careful monitoring of the development and eruption of these teeth during “normal” periodic dental examinations of the developing child [12].

The treatment of impacted canines is crucial for both aesthetics and function. Clinicians must develop treatment plans that are in the best interests of the patient and be knowledgeable about the various therapy alternatives. When patients are correctly examined and treated, clinicians can reduce the occurrence of ectopic eruption and subsequent maxillary canine impaction [12].

The relationship between impacted maxillary canines and maxillary morphology including the maxillary transverse dimension is controversial and, at times, contradictory [13]. McConnell et al. linked a transverse maxillary deficiency to palatally displaced canines [14, 15], which contrasts with other research showing a link between larger maxillary transverse dimensions and canine impaction [16]. However, these studies did not match the groups to establish accurate comparisons. Other authors found no significant variations in maxillary width [17,18,19], although their research lacked a sufficient control group. Thus, it becomes crucial to determine if impacted maxillary canines are related to maxillary transverse skeletal dimensions as well as the dentoalveolar dimensions and the surrounding bone quality.

The craniofacial growth and development during the adolescent age might result in changes in the jaw dimensions; for this reason it is recommended to conduct studies of this nature on adults’ patients [20].

To date, no study has yet compressively evaluated the qualitative and quantitative measurements of the impacted maxillary canines. The null hypothesis was that there are no differences between the quantitative maxillary basal, dentoalveolar, and dental dimensions and the qualitative bone surrounding in patients with unilateral or bilateral impacted maxillary canines relative to their normal peers. Thus, this study aimed to three-dimensionally evaluate the qualitative and quantitative maxillary basal, dentoalveolar, and dental dimensions in patients with unilateral or bilateral maxillary impacted canines compared to their normal peers.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study that was approved by the ethics committee, Hospital of Stomatology, Lanzhou University, China (No LZUKQ-2022-025). The sample was collected from out-patient clinic records at the Hospital of Stomatology, Lanzhou University, China. The subjects were divided into three equal groups: unilateral maxillary canine impaction, bilateral maxillary canine impaction, and control groups (no impaction). The inclusion criteria included the following: (1) age between 16 and 30 years old; (2) presence of unilateral or bilateral maxillary impacted canines; (3) full set of erupted teeth with/without the third molars; (4) absence of the deciduous maxillary canines; and (5) scans with good image definition. The exclusion criteria were: (1) crown/bridge or interproximal caries or restorations; (2) presence of aggressive or progressive periodontitis; (3) previous orthodontic treatment; (4) dental agenesis, maxillary lesions, trauma, or tumours; (5) cleft palate or lip, craniofacial abnormalities, (6) presence of hyper- or hypodontia; (7) neck and head disorders; and 8) patient with reported systemic bone disease.

Study sample size

The sample size was determined utilizing G*power 3.0.10 software with an alpha value of 0.05 and a power of 90% based on the study conducted by Arboleda-Ariza et al. [18], who reported first molars’ alveolar width of 54.2 ± 4.2 mm and 57.2 ± 2.7 mm in the unilateral impacted canines and control group, respectively. Another calculation was considered using a variable representing the vertical growth pattern (NSAr angle) in which the reported values were 126.5 ± 5.9 and 122.6 ± 5.7 mm in unilateral impaction and control groups, respectively. Power analysis based on the two calculations showed a minimum sample of 31 and 48 subjects, respectively. However, the sample size was increased to 50 patients for each study group.

Three-dimensional imaging

Three-dimensional images were acquired using a CBCT (I-CAT®; Imaging Sciences International, Hatfield, PA). CBCT imaging parameters were set at 120 kV, 16.0 cm × 13 cm field of view, and 8.9 s of exposure time with a voxel size of 0.3 mm and a slice thickness of 0.5 mm. The patients were sitting upright with their teeth close to their maximum intercuspation. The Frankfort horizontal plane was positioned parallel to the floor, and the midsagittal plane was perpendicular to the floor; all patients were instructed not to swallow during scanning. The collected CBCT scan data were transferred into a DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine) file format and then imported into the In vivo 6 software (Anatomage, San Jose, CA, USA) for 3D analysis.

Outcomes assessment

A series of cross-sectional views were obtained in secondary reconstruction mode, and the bone of the jaw was aligned parallel to the reference surface using the orientation coordinates. Molar measurements were taken on the most anterior coronal slice of the CBCT scan with the palatal plane horizontal, thus demonstrating the buccal root furcation. Landmarks on the right and left nasal floors were positioned in the most inferior location to establish a nasal floor reference line running between these two landmarks. The same landmark placement and reference line were used for premolar measurements on the coronal slice, thus revealing the centre of the root canal for molar measurements.

The landmarks used are presented in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The outcomes were divided into quantitative and qualitative measures. The quantitative measurements included three basal, seven dentoalveolar, and two dental measurements (Table 2). The basal measurements included molar basal width (MBW), first premolar basal width (PMBW), and arch depth (AD) (Fig. 2).

Table 1 Definitions of the anatomical three-dimensional: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and dental landmarks used in the study
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Three-dimensional views of the selected landmarks used in the study

Full size image
Table 2 Definitions of the measurements used in the study
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

The quantitative basal measurements: a MBW, first molar basal width; b PMBW, first premolar basal width; and c AD, arch depth

Full size image

The dentoalveolar measurements were the molar arch width (MAW), premolar arch width (PMAW), inter-molar width (IMW), inter-premolar width (IPW), inter-canine width (ICW), arch length (AL), and arch perimeter (AP) (Fig. 3). In addition, the dental measurements involved canine length (CL) and width (CW) (Fig. 4a).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The quantitative dentoalveolar measurements: a MAW, first molar alveolar width; b PMAW, first premolar alveolar width; c IMW, inter-molar width; IPMW, inter-premolar width; ICW, inter-canine width; and AL, arch length; d Arch perimeter: the sum of distances A–B, B–C, C–D, and D–E

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

a The quantitative dental measurements including length and width of canines; b Measurement of bone density around the impacted canine between the CEJ line's midpoint and the root apex. c, d Measurement of the bone density at each surface mesially, distally, facially, and palatally

Full size image

The qualitative measurements included four bone density areas: buccal, palatal, mesial, and distal around the maxillary impacted canines. The average value of bone density around the canine was measured in three regions of interest and at one point in the middle region canine length (Fig. 4b). The value registers in a spot diameter of 1 mm each mesially, distally, facially, and palatally (Fig. 4c, d).

Statistical analysis

All data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 22.0 (software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The means and standard errors, standard deviations, and averages were used to present descriptive statistics. The test of normality used the Shapiro–Wilk’s test and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The one-way ANOVA t test was utilized when comparing the three groups (control, unilateral, and bilateral groups). To determine the significant error of the radiographic measurement technique, random CBCT of 33 patients were re-measured by the primary investigator two weeks after the first measurements and by other well-trained examiners under the direct supervision of a well-experienced oral and maxillofacial radiologist. Reliability and reproducibility were analysed by the Cronbach’s alpha and international classification tests. Finally, the trial was performed with 95% confidence.

Results

One hundred and fifty subjects with a mean age of 23.09 ± 6 years old were assessed. The mean ages of the male and female groups were 22.9 ± 6.45 and 23.19 ± 5.79 years, respectively. The gender distribution of the selected sample is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Sex and side upper canine impaction distribution in each group
Full size table

The most bilateral group has a buccal impaction. The unilateral group had the same buccal and palatal impaction. Buccal impaction was more common than palatal impaction, which was more common in women than men (Table 3).

The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) revealed high consistency (0.977; p < 0.001). Table 4 shows that the ICC was excellent; all coefficients of reliability (ICC) values were above the 0.95 proposed cut-off value; this means that the measurement error for this study was low. All values were below the acceptable 5% line, thus indicating a high level of methodology reliability.

Table 4 The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for reliability
Full size table

There were significant differences between the three groups for MBW and PMBW for quantitative maxillary basal measurements. These were lesser in the unilateral and bilateral groups compared with the control group (p < 0.001). The lowest difference was for the MBW measurement (3.3 mm) between the control (70.70 ± 4.52 mm) and the unilateral (67.37 ± 5.75 mm) groups. The highest difference was for the PMBW measurement (8.7 mm) between the control (46.54 ± 7.39 mm) and bilateral (37.79 ± 8.88 mm) groups. There were no significant differences between the three groups related to arch depth (Table 5; Fig. 5a).

Table 5 Comparison of quantitative basal, dentoalveolar, and dental measurements between control and impaction groups
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Comparison of the qualitative and quantitative measurements between impacted and control groups

Full size image

For quantitative dentoalveolar measurements, the results showed significant differences between the three examined groups for MAW, PMAW, IMW, IPW, ICW, AL, and AP assessment; these were lesser in the unilateral and bilateral groups versus the control group (p < 0.001). The lowest difference was for the IMW measurement (1.7 mm) between the control (51.64 ± 2.48 mm) and the bilateral (49.94 ± 3.20 mm) groups. The highest difference was for the ICW measurement (4.5 mm) between the control (33.26 ± 2.76 mm) and unilateral (28.68 ± 2.12 mm) groups (Table 5; Fig. 5b).

For AL and AP assessment, the results showed that there were significant differences between the three examined groups: these were lesser in the unilateral and bilateral groups than in the control group (p < 0.001). The lowest difference was for the AL measurement (2.6 mm) between the control (29 ± 2.22 mm) and the unilateral (26.33 ± 2.72 mm) groups. The highest significant difference was for the AP measurement (5.7 mm) between the control (81.65 ± 3.91 mm) and bilateral (75.95 ± 5.68 mm) groups (Table 5; Fig. 5b).

For quantitative dental measurements, the lowest significant difference was for the CW measurement (0.35 mm) between the control (7.77 ± 0.90 mm) and the bilateral (8.12 ± 0.57 mm) groups, and the highest significant difference was for the CL measurement (3.07 mm) between the control (24.98 ± 2.59 mm) and unilateral (21.91 ± 2.15 mm) groups. There was a significant difference in the measurement length and width of canines among the impaction and control groups (p < 0.001). The impacted canines (unilateral and bilateral) were significantly shorter and wider than those of the control canines. There were no significant differences between bilateral and unilateral length and width of canine (Table 5; Fig. 5c).

Regarding the surrounding bone density, statistical analysis compared the mean value of the four right sides in control (499.9 ± 143.04 HU) and unilateral (765.69 ± 156.87 HU) or bilateral (751.78 ± 135.67 HU), and the mean value of the four left sides in control (593.63 ± 124.71 HU) and unilateral (842.96 ± 126.31 HU) or bilateral (806.19 ± 132.60 HU). Impacted canine groups showed that the bone density area was increased in the impacted canine groups compared to their normal peers. There was no significant difference between the unilateral and bilateral groups. There was no significant difference between right and left bone density (Table 6; Fig. 5d).

Table 6 Comparison of qualitative measurements between control and impaction groups
Full size table

Discussion

Different diagnostic methods have been used to investigate aspects connected to canine impaction over the years [15, 21], including plaster casts and orthopantomography. Pulp necrosis, ankylosis, and external apical root resorption can all result from delayed tooth eruption. When resorption will begin is impossible to prevent. As a result, all impacted teeth should be thought of as having a high chance of causing harm to the adjacent tooth or external apical root resorption. Therefore, a radiographic examination is usually needed to monitor these risks. Early detection is necessary to avoid potential problems, especially resorption of the root of adjacent teeth [22].

This study aimed to compare and contrast the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of maxillary basal, dentoalveolar, and dental dimensions in patients with and without maxillary impacted canines to better understand the mechanical environment at the non-impacted and impacted sites. The basal dimension explained the base of the maxillary arch which if reduced usually needs either rapid palatal expansion at early age or surgically assisted rapid palatal expansion during adulthood, while dentoalveolar dimension is limited to the teeth-bearing area that requires dentoalveolar expansion by dentoalveolar expansion mechanics.

Our findings reported statistically differences for the quantitative measurements involving the two basal variables (MBW and PMBW) and all measured dentoalveolar variables. Unilateral and bilateral impacted groups showed significantly wider and shorter canines than the control group. The qualitative measurements (the four bone density areas) around unilateral and bilateral impacted groups showed significantly greater density than the control group. There was no significant qualitative or quantitative difference between the unilateral and bilateral impacted canines. The three studied groups had no significant variations in terms of AD.

Numerous studies in the literature have evaluated bone and dental features in individuals with impacted canines and compared to non-impacted group [23,24,25]. However, fewer studies have included a control group [15, 26]. Additionally, none of these studies have compared the bilateral group to the unilateral group within the same study or the study group to the control group as examined in the current investigation using a retrospective analysis.

CBCT is an effective method for studying impacted canines [23, 27, 28]. The most accurate diagnostic method for locating impacted teeth is CBCT, which has a lower exposure dosage, lesser cost, and greater image accuracy than traditional CT. It also eliminates the image blurring, overlapping nearby structures, and superimpositions common in panoramic radiography.

Bone trabeculation can be assessed by several means ranging from the periapical radiographs up to the multi-spiral computed tomography [29]. The more sensitive measurement is the bone mineral density which can be accurately measured using CT; but it is costly in terms of radiation exposure, so the other alternative is the use of CBCT; the connection between HU and CBCT values is high when measured bone density at the impacted and erupted canine [30]. On the other hand, this imaging technique has its own drawbacks in this regard; the HU values of subjects are not consistent between different CT systems and between different times scanned even using the same CT system. These discrepancies can arise from the non-uniform process of scaling the HU values during reconstruction [31].

The current findings were in agreement with Sukhia et al. [32, 33] who concluded that Asians have a higher rate of maxillary underdevelopment and anterior transverse deficiency than white people, and Chinese patients had more labially impacted canines especially female patients [34,35,36,37].

This study reported a significant reduction in maxillary basal width at two levels (MBW and PMBW) in the impacted groups. These results agreed with Franchesca et al. [38] who reported that the width from the central raphe to the first premolar is narrower on the side of maxillary palatally impacted canines than on the other side of non-impacted canines. The results also agreed with Tadinada et al. [23], who reported on the impacted side: the alveolar bone height and buccopalatal width were significantly reduced. The population similarity might be behind this agreement. The AD was found to be non-significantly different between the impaction groups (unilateral and bilateral) and the control group in this study. These findings corroborated those of Fattahi et al. [39] and Cacciatore et al. [40], who reported equivalent AD in impacted canines, whether buccal or palatal, and in matched controls. The differences might be attributed to the different measurement method used; in their studies they used the physical study model versus the three-dimensional imaging method in the current study.

Our findings reported reductions in maxillary dentoalveolar width at two levels (MAW and PMAW) in the impacted groups. These results agreed with other authors [23, 38] who reported that the alveolar bone dimensions were significantly reduced on the impacted side. This could indicate that smaller maxillary width dimensions are associated with a higher risk of impaction due to limited space in the dental arch. The maxillary width deficit can be diagnosed at a young age (between 8 and 10 years), and interceptive treatment can be done at earlier time points to prevent this problem [41]. Girls' maxillary canines usually erupt at the age of 10.5 years, whereas boys' maxillary canines usually erupt at the age of 11.5 years (with the individual variation of 3–4 years) [42]; the proper timing of maxillary arch expansion procedure could be selected to rectify the transverse deficiency and reduce the risk of canine impaction [43].

The current study reported that unilateral and bilateral impacted maxillary canine groups had considerably smaller IMW, IPW, ICW, and AL than the control group. These findings were consistent with other reports, which reported that the impacted maxillary canine group had a shorter and narrower maxillary arch than the control group [40, 44].

The arch perimeter of the impacted group is lower than the non-impacted groups, consistent with Tadinada et al. [23], who reported on unilateral palatally impacted canines. There was a significant decrease in the arch perimeter on the impacted side; this is mostly due to the reduction in the transverse dimensions at different levels.

The current study found that impacted canines have a shorter length and wider mesiodistal width than the control group; this is most likely produced by interproximal attrition following the canine eruption, consistent with Schmidt et al. [45], who reported that the roots of impacted canines and lateral incisors were smaller than those of contralateral teeth utilized as controls on periapical radiographs of individuals with palatally displaced canines treated with an open surgical exposure and levelling technique.

The results of this study showed that the bone density was increased in the impacted canine group with no significant difference between the unilateral and bilateral impacted canines groups. The difference in bone density between the non-impacted and impacted groups supported the hypothesis that the increased bone density leads to the retardation of the normal development of the growing canine and subsequently failure of normal eruption process [46, 47]. As a result, we hypothesized that increased bone density could have a role in the impaction of buccal and palatal maxillary canines on a local level. This study is helpful in understanding how bone density influences the anchoring of the dental piece and is especially valuable during the treatment-planning process. There were no significant variations between the unilateral and bilateral groups for all qualitative and quantitative measurements.

The null hypotheses were rejected as the authors found significant differences in the qualitative and quantitative maxillary basal, dentoalveolar, and dental dimensions between patients with unilateral or bilateral maxillary impacted canines relative to their normal peers.

One of the limitations of this study was the sample size. Larger sample size is recommended with more emphasis on the comparisons between males and females in all studied variables. Also, more classification based on facial pattern (brachy, mesocephalic, or dolichocephalic) is recommended to evaluate any relation in this regard. Another limitation is that the ethnicity was limited to Han Chinese; the results may change if other ethnicities are involved.

Conclusion

  • The main take-home message is that the qualitative and quantitative significant differences between the maxillary impacted canines and control groups indicated that the early correction of skeletal discrepancy by slow or rapid expansion and/or the early maxillary dentoalveolar expansion by dentoalveolar expansion mechanics can minimize the possibility of impacted maxillary canines.

  • Maxillary unilateral or bilateral canine impaction is associated with reduced maxillary basal dimensions except for the arch depth.

  • The impacted canines have shorter length and wider mesiodistal dimension compared to the control group.

  • The quality of the surrounding bone around the impacted canines is high and might be a causative factor for possible impaction.

  • Unilateral and bilateral impactions have the same qualitative and quantitative measurements at all levels.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Mercuri E, Cassetta M, Cavallini C, Vicari D, Leonardi R, Barbato E. Skeletal features in patient affected by maxillary canine impaction. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;18:e597-602.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ericson S, Kurol J. Radiographic examination of ectopically erupting maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1987;91:483–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The palatally displaced canine as a dental anomaly of genetic origin. Angle Orthod. 1994;64:250–6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Oliver R, Mannion J, Robinson J. Morphology of the maxillary lateral incisor in cases of unilateral impaction of the maxillary canine. Br J Orthod. 1989;16:9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Grover PS, Lorton L. The incidence of unerupted permanent teeth and related clinical cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 1985;59:420–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alhammadi MS, Asiri HA, Almashraqi AA. Incidence, severity and orthodontic treatment difficulty index of impacted canines in Saudi population. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10:e327–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Becker A. In defense of the guidance theory of palatal canine displacement. Angle Orthod. 1995;65:95–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sacerdoti R, Baccetti T. Dentoskeletal features associated with unilateral or bilateral palatal displacement of maxillary canines. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:725–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Becker A. Orthodontic treatment of impacted teeth. New York: Wiley; 2022.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Rimes RJ, Mitchell C, Willmot D. Maxillary incisor root resorption in relation to the ectopic canine: a review of 26 patients. J Orthod. 1997;19:79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shafer WG. A text book of oral pathology. Cherubism. 1983;699–702.

  12. Manne R, Gandikota C, Juvvadi SR, Rama HR, Anche S. Impacted canines: Etiology, diagnosis, and orthodontic management. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2012;4:S234-238.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim Y, Hyun H-K, Jang K-T. Interrelationship between the position of impacted maxillary canines and the morphology of the maxilla. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141:556–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McConnell TL, Hoffman DL, Forbes DP, Janzen EK, Weintraub NH. Maxillary canine impaction in patients with transverse maxillary deficiency. ASDC J Dent Child. 1996;63:190–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Arboleda-Ariza N, Schilling J, Arriola-Guillén LE, Ruíz-Mora GA, Rodríguez-Cárdenas YA, Aliaga-Del CA. Maxillary transverse dimensions in subjects with and without impacted canines: A comparative cone-beam computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;154:495–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Al-Nimri K, Gharaibeh T. Space conditions and dental and occlusal features in patients with palatally impacted maxillary canines: an aetiological study. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:461–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Anic-Milosevic S, Varga S, Mestrovic S, Lapter-Varga M, Slaj M. Dental and occlusal features in patients with palatally displaced maxillary canines. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:367–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saiar M, Rebellato J, Sheats RD. Palatal displacement of canines and maxillary skeletal width. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:511–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hong W-H, Radfar R, Chung C-H. Relationship between the maxillary transverse dimension and palatally displaced canines: a cone-beam computed tomographic study. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:440–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Perillo L, Isola G, Esercizio D, Iovane M, Triolo G, Matarese G. Differences in craniofacial characteristics in Southern Italian children from Naples: a retrospective study by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2013;14:195–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Eslami E, Barkhordar H, Abramovitch K, Kim J, Masoud MI. Cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional radiography in visualization of maxillary impacted-canine localization: a systematic review of comparative studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017;151:248–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kavadia-Tsatala S, Tsalikis L, Kaklamanos EG, Sidiropoulou S, Antoniades K. Orthodontic and periodontal considerations in managing teeth exhibiting significant delay in eruption. World J Orthod. 2004;5:224–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tadinada A, Mahdian M, Vishwanath M, Allareddy V, Upadhyay M, Yadav S. Evaluation of alveolar bone dimensions in unilateral palatally impacted canine: a cone-beam computed tomographic analyses. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37:596–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Arriola-Guillén LE, Rodríguez-Cárdenas YA, Ruíz-Mora GA. Skeletal and dentoalveolar bilateral dimensions in unilateral palatally impacted canine using cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod. 2017;18:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Silva ACd, Capistrano A, Almeida-Pedrin RRd, Cardoso MdA, Conti ACdCF, Capelozza L. Root length and alveolar bone level of impacted canines and adjacent teeth after orthodontic traction: a long-term evaluation. J Appl Oral Sci 2017;25: 75–81.

  26. Mercuri E, Cassetta M, Cavallini C, Vicari D, Leonardi R, Barbato E. Dental anomalies and clinical features in patients with maxillary canine impaction: a retrospective study. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:22–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. da Silva Santos LM, Bastos LC, Oliveira-Santos C, Da Silva SJA, Neves FS, Campos PSF. Cone-beam computed tomography findings of impacted upper canines. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44:287–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Yan B, Sun Z, Fields H, Wang L, Luo L. Etiologic factors for buccal and palatal maxillary canine impaction: a perspective based on cone-beam computed tomography analyses. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143:527–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barngkgei I, Halboub E, Almashraqi A. Effect of bisphosphonate treatment on the jawbone: an exploratory study using periapical and panoramic radiographic evaluation. Oral Radiol. 2019;35:159–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abazi Y, Guglielmo M, Cenko F, Harka E, Cozza P. Analysis of bone density in a group of patients with dental inclusion. Balkan J Dental Med. 2019;23:141–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim DG. Can dental cone beam computed tomography assess bone mineral density? J Bone Metab. 2014;21:117–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Jacoby H. The etiology of maxillary canine impactions. Am J Orthod. 1983;84:125–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sukhia HR, Sukhia RH, Baloch DA, Iqbal Z. Impacted Canines in Orthodontic Patients at Jinnah Medical and Dental College-A Cross Sectional Study Impacted Canines in Orthodontic Patients at Jinnah Medical and Dental College-A Cross Sectional Study.

  34. Langberg BJ, Peck S. Adequacy of maxillary dental arch width in patients with palatally displaced canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;118:220–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Suhr C. Orthodontic considerations in maxillary impacted canines. Taehan Chikkwa Uisa Hyophoe Chi. 1987;25:59–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ito M, Nozaka K, Moriguchi O, Yamada S, Innami H, Yamazaki K, et al. The clinical observation of exposure and traction cases of impacted teeth Shoni Shikagaku zasshi. Jpn J Pedodont. 1986;24:643–52.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zhong Y, Zeng X, Jia Q, Zhang W, and Chen L. Clinical investigation of impacted maxillary canine. Zhonghua kou qiang yi xue za zhi= Zhonghua kouqiang yixue zazhi= Chin J Stomatol. 2006;41: 483–485.

  38. Oleo-Aracena MFD, Arriola-Guillén LE, Rodríguez-Cárdenas YA, Ruíz-Mora GA. Skeletal and dentoalveolar bilateral dimensions in unilateral palatally impacted canine using cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod. 2017;18:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fattahi H, Ghaeed F, Alipour A. Association between maxillary canine impaction and arch dimensions. Aust Orthod J. 2012;28:57–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cacciatore G, Poletti L, Sforza C. Early diagnosed impacted maxillary canines and the morphology of the maxilla: a three-dimensional study. Prog Orthod. 2018;19:20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Moorrees CF, Gron AM, Lebret LM, Yen PK, Fröhlich FJ. Growth studies of the dentition: a review. Am J Orthod. 1969;55:600–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kurol J. Early treatment of tooth-eruption disturbances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121:588–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Baccetti T, Mucedero M, Leonardi M, Cozza P. Interceptive treatment of palatal impaction of maxillary canines with rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:657–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hamdan AL, Khandakji M, Macari AT. Maxillary arch dimensions associated with acoustic parameters in prepubertal children. Angle Orthod. 2018;88:410–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Schmidt AD, Kokich VG. Periodontal response to early uncovering, autonomous eruption, and orthodontic alignment of palatally impacted maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131:449–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Servais JA, Gaalaas L, Lunos S, Beiraghi S, Larson BE, Leon-Salazar V. Alternative cone-beam computed tomography method for the analysis of bone density around impacted maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;154:442–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pauwels R, Jacobs R, Singer SR, Mupparapu M. CBCT-based bone quality assessment: are Hounsfield units applicable? Dentomaxillofacial Radio. 2015;44:20140238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully thank the Natural Foundation of Gansu Province, China (1208RJZA236), the Key Technology Plane Program of Gansu Province, China (20YF8FA071), the Key Technology Support Program of Gansu Province, China (1604FKCA089), and the Open Subject Foundation of Key Laboratory of Dental Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Biological Intelligence Manufacturing (20JR10RA653—ZDKF20210401), School of Stomatology, Lanzhou University, Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, PR China, for financial support.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this study is supported by The Natural Foundation of Gansu Province, China (1208RJZA236), the Key Technology Plane Program of Gansu Province, China (20YF8FA071), the Key Technology Support Program of Gansu Province, China (1604FKCA089), and the Open Subject Foundation of Key Laboratory of Dental Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Biological Intelligence Manufacturing (20JR10RA653—ZDKF20210401), School of Stomatology, Lanzhou University, Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, PR China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, College of Dentistry, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China

    Hasan M. Sharhan, Ehab A. Abdulghani, Wenyuanfeng Chen & BaoCheng Cao

  2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University, Dhamar, Republic of Yemen

    Hasan M. Sharhan & Ehab A. Abdulghani

  3. Department of Pre-Clinical Oral Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

    Abeer A. Almashraqi

  4. Prosthodontics Department, School of Stomatology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China

    Hanan Al-fakeh

  5. Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University, Dhamar, Republic of Yemen

    Hanan Al-fakeh

  6. Unit and Divisional Chief Orthodontics at Hamad Medical Corporation; College of Dental Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

    Najah Alhashimi

  7. Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University, Dhamar, Republic of Yemen

    Abeer A. Al-Sosowa

  8. Department of Periodontics, College of Dentistry, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China

    Abeer A. Al-Sosowa

  9. Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

    Maged S. Alhammadi

  10. Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Department of Orthodontics, Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Republic of Yemen

    Maged S. Alhammadi

Authors
  1. Hasan M. Sharhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abeer A. Almashraqi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanan Al-fakeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Najah Alhashimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ehab A. Abdulghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wenyuanfeng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abeer A. Al-Sosowa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. BaoCheng Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Maged S. Alhammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HMS and BCC* contributed to conception and design of study. AAA, NA, and MSA were involved in acquisition of data. HA, AAA, EAA, and WC contributed to analysis and/or interpretation of data. HMS and HA were involved in drafting the manuscript. HMS, AAA, MSA, and BC* revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to BaoCheng Cao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

LZUKQ-2022-025.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharhan, H.M., Almashraqi, A.A., Al-fakeh, H. et al. Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional evaluation of maxillary basal and dentoalveolar dimensions in patients with and without maxillary impacted canines. Prog Orthod. 23, 38 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00434-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00434-3

Keywords