28 May 2024 : Clinical Research
Maxillary Canine Impaction: Assessing the Influence of Maxillary Anatomy Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography
Mujgan Firincioglulari
1ABEF*, Doga Kurt2BCDE, Sevgi Koral2ABEF, Kaan Orhan 34ABDE
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.944306
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e944306
Table 1 (A) Distribution of the impacted canines in terms of gender groups. (B) Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the measurements in terms of sex.
| (A) | Femalen (%) | Malen (%) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Side | Control | 36 (%49.3) | 28 (%50.9) | 0.346 |
| Right | 27 (%37) | 15 (%27.3) | ||
| Left | 10 (%13.7) | 12 (%21.8) | ||
| Position | Control | 36 (%49.3) | 28 (%50.9) | 0.988 |
| Mid-alveolus | 11 (%15.1) | 9 (%16.4) | ||
| Palatinal | 20 (%27.4) | 14 (%25.5) | ||
| Labial | 6 (%8.2) | 4 (%7.3) | ||
| χ̄ σ | χ̄ σ | |||
| Palatal width from the cementoenamel junction | 33.09 (2.78) | 34.98 (2.85) | ||
| Palatal width from the crest | 30.65 (2.67) | 32.29 (2.77) | ||
| Palatal width from mid-root | 28.46 (2.53) | 30.05 (2.44) | ||
| Intermolar width | 49.08 (2.92) | 51.38 (2.85) | ||
| Palatal depth | 13.82 (2.08) | 14.86 (2.32) | ||
| Arch length | 27.70 (2.15) | 28.61 (2.63) | ||
| Arch Perimeter | 71.07 (5.16) | 73.52 (4.92) | ||
| Width of the Nasal Cavity | 29.30 (3.06) | 30.40 (3.15) | ||
| * Shows statistical significance ( | ||||