A Comparison of Impacted Maxillary Canine Localization by Panoramic Radiograph Interpretation

Article Sidebar

PDF A Comparison
Published: Jun 29, 2018
Keywords:
Panoramic radiograph Impacted canine Magnification Angulation Sector

Main Article Content

Suwadee Kositbowornchai
Department of Oral Diagnosis, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Amphur Muang, Khon Kaen
Pathompong Roongruangsilp
Sirinthorn Hospital, Amphur Muang, Khon Kaen.
Nattanan Watanaanek
Sirinthorn College of Public Health Khon Kaen, Amphur Muang, Khon Kaen
Subin Puasiri
Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Amphur Muang, Khon Kaen.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the 3 panoramic interpretation methods in predicting the position of a displaced
maxillary canine and to determine the new appropriate cut-off point for buccal and palatal canine impaction. We performed a
retrospective study of 37 patients with 47 maxillary impacted canines. Patients underwent both panoramic radiograph and cone
beam computed tomography (CBCT). Panoramic radiograph methods—including magnification method or canine incisor index (CII),
angulation and sector methods—were evaluated using CBCT as the gold standard. The McNemarχ2 and Stuart-Maxwell tests were
calculated to compare the panoramic methods and CBCT. Diagnostic testing (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) and Receiver
Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) were evaluated for new appropriate cut-off points (significance level 0.05). Of the 37 patients,
23 were female. Age ranged between 12 and 41 years (mean, 20.27±8.03). The 47 impacted canines included 11 (23.40%)
buccal, 20 (42.55%) palatal canine and 16 (34.05%) mid alveolus. The sensitivity of the 3 methods for buccal and palatal canine
impaction were between 37.5-77.42 %. There were no statistically significant difference among the magnification and angulation
method and CBCT (p = 0.80 and 0.07, respectively). However, there was a significant difference between the sector and the CBCT
(p = 0.04). In conclusion, magnification and angulation methods were interchangeable and not different from CBCT in determining
the position of impacted maxillary canines.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Kositbowornchai S, Roongruangsilp P, Watanaanek N, Puasiri S. A Comparison of Impacted Maxillary Canine Localization by Panoramic Radiograph Interpretation. Khon Kaen Dent J [Internet]. 2018 Jun. 29 [cited 2024 Apr. 25];21(1):47-55. Available from: https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/KDJ/article/view/131463
Issue
Vol. 21 No. 1 (2018)
Section
Research Articles

บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการลงตีพิมพ์ในวิทยาสารทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่นถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์เฉพาะของคณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่น หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำทั้งหมดหรือส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใด ๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษร จากคณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่นก่อนเท่านั้น

Share |

References

1. Pokorny PH, Weins JP, Litvak H. Occlusion for fixed prosthodontics: a historical perspective of the gnathological influence. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:299-313.
2. Bishara SE. Impacted maxillary canine: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:159-71.
3. Ericson S, Kurol J. Radiographic examination of ectopically erupting maxillary canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:483-92.
4. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The palatally displaced canine as a dental anomaly of genetic origin. Angle Orthod 1994;64:249-56.
5. Kim Y, Hyun HK, Jang KT. The position of maxillary canine impactions and the influenced factors to adjacent root resorption in the Korean population. Eur J Orthod 2014;34:302-6.
6. Nordenram A. Impacted maxillary canines A study of surgically treated patients over 20 years of age. Swed Dent J 2014;11:153-8.
7. Lai CS, Suter VGA, Katsaros C, Bornstein MM. Localization of impacted maxillary canines and root resorption of neighbouring teeth: A study assessing the diagnostic value of panoramic radiographs in two groups of observers. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:450-6.
8. Alqerban A. Hedesiu M, Baciut M, Nackaerts O, Jacobs R,Fieuws S, et al. Pre surgical treatment planning of maxillary canine impactions using panoramic vs cone beam CT imaging. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:20130157.
9. Chaushu S, Chaushu G, Becker A. The use of panoramic radiographs to localize displaced maxillary canines. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:511-6.
10. Katsnelson A, Flick WG, Tartakovsky J. Use of panoramic X-ray to determine position of impacted maxillary canines. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:996-1000.
11. Jung YH, Liang H, Benson BW, Flint DJ, Cho BH. The assessment of impacted maxillary canine position with panoramic radiography and cone beam CT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:356-60.
12. An S, Wang J, Li J, Cheng Q, Jiang CM, Wang YT, et al. Comparison of methods for localization of impacted maxillary canines by panoramic radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:20130129.
13. Wolf JE, Mattila K. Localization of impacted maxillary canines by panoramic tomography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1979;8:85-91.
14. Fox NA, Fletcher GA, Horner K. Localizing maxillary canines using dental panoramic tomography. Br Dent J 1995;179:416-20.
15. Alqerban A, Storms A, Voet M, Early prediction of maxillary canine impaction. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2016;45:20150232.
16. Warford JH Jr, Grandhi RK, Tira DE. Prediction of maxillary canine impaction using sectors and angular measurement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(6):651-5.
17. Mason C, Papadakou P, Roberts GJ. The radiographic localization of impacted canine: a comparison of methods. Eur J Orthod 2003;23:25-34.