Dental anomalies and clinical features in patients with maxillary canine impaction

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the prevalence, distribution, clinical features, and relationship with dental anomalies of maxillary canine impaction. Materials and Methods: The complete pretreatment records of 1674 orthodontic patients were examined. Subjects with maxillary impacted canines were divided into two study groups: a palatally displaced canine (PDC) group (114 patients) and a buccally displaced canine (BDC) group (37 patients). These were compared to a control group of 151 patients who were randomly selected from the initial sample without maxillary canine impaction. The significance of associations between canine impaction and dental and clinical features and anomalies was examined with the chi-square test.

Impacted Maxillary Canine Prevalence and Its Association with Other Dental Anomalies in a Mexican Population

“…This coincides with previous reports [9, 10, 12], although most of these studies only evaluated palatally displaced canines. However, in a study of Chinese patients exhibiting palatally and lingually displaced IMC, other DAs were associated.…”

“…The 6.04% IMC prevalence in the cohort is within the 1.73 to 9.02% interval reported in other populations [6–9, 11, 19, 20]; the 5.43% rate reported in Hungary is the closest to our study [20]. Bilateral impaction was present in 25% of the IMC patients—this is similar to the 19.2% observed in the Greek population [6].…”

“…If third molars are excluded, the maxillary canines are the most common teeth to experience impaction [3, 6–8], and patients with impacted maxillary canines (IMC) often exhibit other associated dental anomalies [9, 10]. The frequent association of these anomalies has led some researchers to suggest their use as markers to indicate the need for further clinical and/or X-ray analyses to create early diagnosis [11].…”

Maxillary canine impaction in orthodontic patients with and without agenesis: A cross-sectional radiographic study

“…An investigation of the associated dental anomalies of the two types of impaction showed that both PDCs and BDCs were associated only with tooth agenesis. 9 Among BDCs, only those related to noncrowding have been associated with anomalous lateral incisors. 39 These findings may imply that, although PDCs and BDCs differ in their etiologic background, in the case of concurrent agenesis, some similarities can be expected.…”

“…5,6 The prevalence of impaction appears to be higher in females compared to males, with the reported ratio ranging from 1.3:1 to 3.2:1 7,8 ; however, no evidence of an association between gender and canine location (labial/palatal) has been reported. 9 Maxillary canine impaction (MCI) occurs frequently together with other dental anomalies, such as second premolar agenesis, microdontia of maxillary lateral incisors, enamel hypoplasia, and infraocclusion of deciduous molars. 10 Other dental anomalies associated with MCI are missing and/or peg-shaped maxillary lateral incisors, [11][12][13][14] third molar agenesis, 13 generalized or localized tooth-size reduction, 7,11,12,15 distoangulation of unerupted mandibular second premolars, 16,17 generalized or localized delayed tooth development and eruption, 17 and transpositions.…”