Relationship of Angulation of Maxillary Impacted Canines with Maxillary Lateral Incisor Root Resorption

Abstract

Objective: To assess the relationship of ɑ and ß angles of maxillary impacted canines with maxillary lateral incisor root resorption. Material and Methods: For this, 40 patients (between 11 and 45 years) with impacted maxillary canines presenting to a private orthodontic clinic were evaluated.20% of the cases were male and 80% were female. The ɑ and ß angles were measured on panoramic radiographs to determine the angulation of impacted canine. CBCT scans had been taken by ProMax 3D CBCT system were used to examine lateral root reorption. The relationship between the size of ɑ and ß angles of impacted maxillary canines and root resorption in the adjacent maxillary lateral incisor was analyzed using SPSS version 22. Results: The mean size of ɑ and ß angles had no significant correlation with the presence/absence, location, or severity of root resorption in the adjacent lateral incisor or the buccolingual position of impacted canine. The ɑ and ß angles in impacted maxillary canines cannot be used to determine the incidence or severity of root resorption in the adjacent lateral incisor. Conclusion: No significant association between ɑ and ß angles and incidence or severity of root resorption in the adjacent lateral incisor was found.

Predictors of root resorption in lateral incisors adjacent to maxillary impacted canines in CBCT images: A retrospective study

“…This nding is in line with the studies of Jawad (2016), Ucar (2017) and Hadler-Olsen (2019) (11,23,28). The ndings of Ardakani et al's study is however at odds with our ndings; their study showed that the buccal positioning of IMC can increase the severity of ALRR (12). This difference can be due to Ardakani et al's smaller sample size (40 samples) or their sample's different age range (11-45 years).…”

“…Our study showed no signi cant association between the severity and location of ALRR and CAL, CAO, CAM. This nding is in accordance with the studies of Hadler-Olsen (2015), Ucar (2017) and Ardakani (2021) (11,12,23). Moreover, Guarnieri et al's study in 2016 showed no signi cant association between ALRR and CAM and CAO (18).…”

“…However, female patients being more attentive to aesthetics and more willing to receive orthodontic treatment can also be the reason for this difference (12,18).…”

“…Hadler-Olsen's (2015) studies (22,23). Buccal impaction is usually related to insu cient space in the dental arch, while palatal impaction may occur even with adequate space (12).…”

“…The association between ALRR and some variables including the position and angle of the impacted tooth, patient's sex and age, the distance between IMC and the midline and the occlusal plane, as well as the IMC's follicle size has been evaluated in previous studies (2,3,12). However, none of the previously conducted studies have evaluated all these variables in a single population.…”