ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Cephalometric characteristics of individuals with impacted maxillary canines regarding their impaction sector: A comparative study.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Impacted maxillary canines (ICM) can significantly change the shape of the anterior maxilla, particularly when they are situated near the dental midline. This research aimed to evaluate the cephalometric characteristics of individuals with ICM considering their impaction sector. Material and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 135 sets of panoramic and lateral head radiographs divided into three groups. Group A consisted of 45 patients with IMC in sectors 1, 2, and 3. Group B included 45 patients with IMC in sectors 4 and 5, and the control group, matched for sex and age, comprised 45 patients without IMC. Cephalometric measurements were collected using WebCeph software, focusing on variables such as the impaction sector, growth pattern, SNA angle, Wits appraisal, 1/NA angle, 1-NA distance, nasolabial angle, and maxillary length. One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test and multiple linear regression analyses were used for group comparisons. (P< 0.05). Results: Statistically significant differences were observed in the SNA angle, with the impaction group in sectors 4 and 5 showing greater values (82.96°) compared to the control group (81.19°; p<0.05). Additionally, the 1-NA distance was smaller in sectors 1, 2, and 3 (2.96 mm) than in the control group (4.20 mm; p<0.05). Furthermore, the nasolabial angle was greater in sectors 4 and 5 (102.22°) than in the control group (93.70°; p<0.05). Conclusions: Patients with IMCs show a distinct cephalometric pattern, including an increased SNA angle, especially when the impaction is near the midline. This condition is associated with incisor retrusion and a higher nasolabial angle. These findings suggest that the location of canine impaction affects both the dentoskeletal structure and the soft tissue profile.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.