4.1 Article

Morphometric analysis of the palatal shape and arch dimension in subjects with buccally displaced canine

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 544-550

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjz091

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To analyse morphological variations of the palate shape and maxillary arch dimension between a group of subjects with unilaterally or bilaterally buccally impacted maxillary canines and a control group (CG) by means of 3D geometric morphometric (GMM). Materials: Pre-treatment records of 50 subjects (16 males and 34 females; mean age 13.9 years +/- 1.8) with one or both canines buccally displaced were collected retrospectively. A CG of 50 subjects was selected from a list of orthodontic patients at the same dental hospital.The experimental group, buccally displaced canine (BDC) was divided in two groups: unilateral buccally displaced canine (UBDC) and bilateral buccally displaced canine (BBDC). To analyse the palate's shape and maxillary arch dimension, study casts were scanned. To study the entirety of the palatal shape, 3D GMM analysis was used. To analyse the maxillary arch dimension, the virtual three-dimensional models were measured with a specific software (VAM, Vectra, Canfield Scientific, Fairfield, New Jersey, USA). Results: When comparing the groups with the GMM analysis, patients with BDC showed a statistically significant narrower and higher palatal vault. About the analysis of linear measurements, the intercanine width, the anterior and posterior segment length were significantly smaller in BDC, UBDC, and BBDC subjects when compared with the controls and there were no differences between UBDC versus BBDC groups. Conclusions: Patients with buccally displaced permanent canine tended to have maxillary transverse constriction and variation in palatal vault morphology. The morphometric variation of the palatine vault and arch dimensions can be considered a clinical factor associated with the presence of BDC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据