Abstract
AIM: To compare the morphology of the maxillary arch in individuals with vestibular vs palatal impacted maxillary canines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This comparative cross-sectional study evaluated 100 CT scans of individuals with impacted maxillary canines. Participants were divided into two groups based on the type of impaction: Buccal (n = 50) and palatal (n = 50). Two trained and calibrated investigators assessed the shape of the maxillary arch, as well as the dimensions of the basal and alveolar widths between the first premolar and first molar, and the depth of the palatal vault. Chi-square tests, Student's t-tests, and multiple linear regression analyses were performed (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: A triangular shape was observed more frequently in cases of buccal impaction (48%), while a parabolic shape was predominant in palatal impactions (64%) (p = 0.011). The transverse measurements of basal and alveolar widths between the first premolar and first molar, as well as the depth of the palatal vault, were similar across both groups (p > 0.05). The male gender was associated with an increase in transverse width at the molar level, while age had a slight inverse effect on molar basal width.
CONCLUSIONS: The shape of the maxillary arch differs between individuals with buccally vs palatally impacted maxillary canines. Specifically, buccally impacted canines typically present with a triangular arch shape, whereas palatally impacted canines exhibit a parabolic shape. The transverse dimensions of the maxillary arch at both the alveolar and bone levels are generally comparable, with variations primarily influenced by gender and age.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Maxillary morphology can be affected by the specific conditions of impacted canines. Orthodontists should take this into account when planning their treatments. How to cite this article: Llanos-Chavez T, Lluncor-Leon X, Llaguno-Rubio JM, et al. Maxillary Arch Morphology in Individuals with Buccal vs Palatal-impacted Maxillary Canines: A Comparative Cross-sectional Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(8):732-737.