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 2 Comparison of measurement results between groups.
| Control (C) | Mid alveolus (M) | Palatinal (P) | Labial (L) | p | Post Hoc | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ̄ (σ) | χ̄ (σ) | χ̄ (σ) | χ̄ (σ) | C-M | C-P | C-L | M-P | M-L | P-L | ||
| Palatal width from the cementoenamel junction | 34.25 (2.77) | 33.75 (3.20) | 33.76 (2.87) | 32.49 (3.78) | 0.352 | .514 | .443 | .082 | .988 | .271 | .231 |
| Palatal width from alveolar crest | 31.50 (2.63) | 31.18 (2.73) | 31.59 (2.82) | 30.06 (4.13) | 0.467 | .668 | .884 | .137 | .617 | .312 | .136 |
| Palatal width from mid-root | 29.65 (2.46) | 28.54 (2.37) | 29.08 (2.80) | 27.32 (2.56) | * | .090 | .292 | .008 | .450 | .219 | .057 |
| Intermolar width | 50.49 (3.08) | 49.62 (3.51) | 50.10 (2.54) | 48.14 (3.66) | 0.138 | .271 | .551 | .026 | .579 | .214 | .077 |
| Palatal depth | 14.67 (2.38) | 13.57 (1.89) | 13.99 (2.00) | 14.00 (2.52) | 0.202 | .057 | .156 | .377 | .503 | .623 | .997 |
| Arch length | 28.40 (2.51) | 28.07 (2.42) | 27.56 (2.32) | 27.97 (1.91) | 0.436 | .589 | .102 | .597 | .456 | .915 | .639 |
| Perimeter | 73.76 (4.52) | 71.51 (4.81) | 70.20 (5.83) | 69.41 (4.48) | * | .077 | .001 | .011 | .351 | .275 | .655 |
| Width of the nasal cavity | 29.77 (3.14) | 29.32 (2.94) | 30.16 (3.310) | 29.42 (3.17) | 0.79 | .574 | .567 | .741 | .347 | .935 | .516 |
| * Shows statistical significance. | |||||||||||