Position of Maxillary Lateral Incisor and First Premolar in Impaction of Maxillary Canines: A Controlled Clinical CBCT and 3D Study Model Analysis

<b>Objectives</b>: This study examined the link between impacted maxillary canines and changes in the position of adjacent lateral incisors (LIs) and first premolars (FPs), as well as opposite canines. It also explored the relationship between the position of impacted canines and the presence of palpable mucosal bulges. <b>Methods:</b> The clinical study involved 62 participants (35 females, 27 males; average age: 14.7 years), split equally into impacted canine (n = 31) and control (n = 31) groups. The study included 26 palatally impacted canines, 5 buccally impacted canines, 31 non-impacted contralateral canines, and 62 control canines. Three-dimensional study models assessed LI and FP positions, while CBCT analyzed vertical and horizontal positions of impacted canines and dental follicles. Clinicians evaluated the presence of mucosal bulges, and distance was measured between impacted canines and outer cortical bone radiographically. <b>Results:</b> Compared to controls, the LIs next to impacted canines showed significantly more rotation (13°), mesiodistal angulation (11.5°), and buccopalatal angulation. FPs showed increased rotation (10.0°) and mesiodistal angulation (8.7° more) but no change in buccopalatal inclination. Contralateral canines had significantly more rotation (11.3°) than controls. Buccally impacted canines led to greater positional differences in the LIs compared to palatally impacted canines. Follicle thickness had a moderate correlation with FP rotation and mesiodistal angulation but did not relate to LI malposition. Visible mucosal bulges indicated distances of 1.2 mm or less between the canine and cortical bone. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study found positional differences in lateral incisors showed altered rotation, angulation, and inclination, while first premolars had increased rotation and angulation. Buccally impacted canines showed more discrepancies for lateral incisors. A mucosal bulge may indicate impacted canine location if the impacted canine is close to the outer bone surface. Follicle thickness affected premolar position but not incisors.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dentistry Journal
Published
2025-10-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13110497
Primary Topic
dental development and anomalies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Position of Maxillary Lateral Incisor and First Premolar in Impaction of Maxillary Canines: A Controlled Clinical CBCT and 3D Study Model Analysis

Aljaž Golež, Maja Ovsenik, Maja Hočevar
Dentistry Journal
dental development and anomalies
article

Position of Maxillary Lateral Incisor and First Premolar in Impaction of Maxillary Canines: A Controlled Clinical CBCT and 3D Study Model Analysis

Aljaž Golež, Maja Ovsenik, Maja Hočevar
article en

Abstract

<b>Objectives</b>: This study examined the link between impacted maxillary canines and changes in the position of adjacent lateral incisors (LIs) and first premolars (FPs), as well as opposite canines. It also explored the relationship between the position of impacted canines and the presence of palpable mucosal bulges. <b>Methods:</b> The clinical study involved 62 participants (35 females, 27 males; average age: 14.7 years), split equally into impacted canine (n = 31) and control (n = 31) groups. The study included 26 palatally impacted canines, 5 buccally impacted canines, 31 non-impacted contralateral canines, and 62 control canines. Three-dimensional study models assessed LI and FP positions, while CBCT analyzed vertical and horizontal positions of impacted canines and dental follicles. Clinicians evaluated the presence of mucosal bulges, and distance was measured between impacted canines and outer cortical bone radiographically. <b>Results:</b> Compared to controls, the LIs next to impacted canines showed significantly more rotation (13°), mesiodistal angulation (11.5°), and buccopalatal angulation. FPs showed increased rotation (10.0°) and mesiodistal angulation (8.7° more) but no change in buccopalatal inclination. Contralateral canines had significantly more rotation (11.3°) than controls. Buccally impacted canines led to greater positional differences in the LIs compared to palatally impacted canines. Follicle thickness had a moderate correlation with FP rotation and mesiodistal angulation but did not relate to LI malposition. Visible mucosal bulges indicated distances of 1.2 mm or less between the canine and cortical bone. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study found positional differences in lateral incisors showed altered rotation, angulation, and inclination, while first premolars had increased rotation and angulation. Buccally impacted canines showed more discrepancies for lateral incisors. A mucosal bulge may indicate impacted canine location if the impacted canine is close to the outer bone surface. Follicle thickness affected premolar position but not incisors.

Dentistry JournalVol. 13(11)
University of Ljubljana (SI), Ljubljana University Medical Centre (SI)
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
dental development and anomalies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.