Dental age in children with impacted maxillary canines

Figures & data

Table 1. Previous studies analysing the relationship between DA and patients with IMC.

Author and year	Country	IG size (n)	CG size (n)	Dental age assessment index	Age distribution (years)	Difference DA − DA between IG and CG	Difference DA − CA within IG	Difference DA − DA with respect to gender	Difference DA − CA with respect to gender within IG	Difference DA − DA with respect to position	Difference DA − CA with respect to position
Becker & Chaushu [10]	Israel	102	57	Becker	9–16	Not analyzed	Not analyzed	Not considered	Not considered	Not analyzed	DA lower than CA for P but not for B
Rozylo-Kalinowska [11]	Poland	116	116	Demirjian	12–16	DA higher in CG than IG	DA 0.08 years higher than CA	Not considered	Not considered	Not analyzed	No differences
Naser et al. [12]	Jordan	240	120	Demirjian	7–17	Not analyzed	Not analyzed	Not considered	Significant differences for both genders, but larger difference for females	Not analyzed	DA significantly lower than CA for P but not for B
Sajnani & King [13]	China	281	0	Demirjian	7–15	Not considered	DA 0.4 years higher than CA	Not considered	Not considered	Not considered	No differences
The present study	Sweden	514	514	Demirjian	9–16	DA 0.2 years higher for CG than IG	DA 0.6 years higher than CA	Only significant for females, DA 0.3 years higher for IG than CG	No differences	No differences	No differences

IMC: Impacted maxillary canines; IG: Impaction group; CG: Control group; DA: Dental age; CA: Chronological age; P: Palatal; B: Buccal.

Not analyzed refers to data that are collected but not analysed in the study. Not considered refers to data that has not been collected in the study.

Figure 1. Patient distribution.

Table 2. DA and CA for all patients with respect to chronological age groups.

Total		Impaction group (n = 514)				Comparison of IG vs CG		Control group (n = 514)
Age group, years	Number of patients	DA	CA	Median of differences DA − CA	p-Value	Median of differences DA − DA	p-Value	DA	CA	Median of differences − CA	p-Value
9	9	10.4 [9.9–11.3]	9.4 [9.2–9.8]	1.2	.039	0.4	.289	10.7 [10.3–11.1]	9.4 [9.2–9.8]	1.1	.002
10	30	11.7 [11.2–12.6]	10.5 [10.3–10.7]	1.2	<.001	−0.6	.087	11.3 [10.6–12.1]	10.5 [10.3–10.7]	0.7	.001
11	64	12.5 [11.8–13.6]	11.5 [11.3–11.7]	1.2	<.001	−0.1	.699	12.6 [11.7–13.7]	11.5 [11.3–11.7]	1.2	<.001
12	129	13.5 [12.8–14.2]	12.4 [12.1–12.7]	1.1	<.001	0.2	.010	13.7 [13.1–14.6]	12.4 [12.1–12.7]	1.5	<.001
13	133	14.4 [13.2–15.0]	13.4 [13.2–13.6]	0.6	<.001	0.8	.002	14.6 [13.7–16.0]	13.4 [13.2–13.6]	1.1	<.001
14	102	15.0 [13.9–16.0]	14.4 [14.2–14.7]	0.6	<.001	0.0	.064	16.0 [14.4–16.0]	14.4 [14.2–14.7]	1.2	<.001
15	47	16.0 [14.6–16.0]	15.4 [15.2–15.6]	0.4	.011	0.0	.078	16.0 [16.0–16.0]	15.4 [15.2–15.6]	0.5	<.001
Weighted median of differences				0.6	<0.001	0.2	<0.001			1.2	<.001

IG: impaction group; CG: control group; DA: dental age; CA: chronological age.

Comparisons of DA between the IG and CG, and DA versus CA within the IG and CG. Data shown are the median [25th–75th percentile] values.

Table 3. DA and CA for male patients with respect to chronological age groups.

Males		Impaction group (n = 168)				Comparison of IG vs CG		Control group (n = 168)
Age group, years	Number of patients	DA	CA	Median of differences DA − CA	p-Value	Median of differences DA − DA	p-Value	DA	CA	Median of differences DA − CA	p-Value
9-10	9	11.5 [10.9–11.6]	10.2 [9.9–10.6]	0.9	.008	−0.4	.125	11.0 [10.3–11.4]	10.2 [9.8–10.6]	0.6	.008
11	21	11.9 [11.5–12.6]	11.4 [11.2–11.8]	0.5	.001	−0.3	.503	12.3 [11.5–13.0]	11.4 [11.2–11.8]	0.5	.027
12	34	13.2 [12.2–14.1]	12.4 [12.2–12.8]	0.8	.035	0.5	.215	13.6 [12.3–15.8]	12.4 [12.2–12.8]	1.2	.017
13	51	14.4 [13.6–15.8]	13.5 [13.2–13.7]	0.8	<.001	0.3	.371	14.7 [13.6–15.8]	13.5 [13.2–13.7]	1.5	<.001
14	37	15.8 [14.4–16.0]	14.4 [14.1–14.7]	1.0	.004	0.2	.281	15.8 [14.4–16.0]	14.4 [14.1–14.7]	1.4	<.001
15	17	16.0 [15.8–16.0]	15.3 [15.2–15.6]	0.5	.013	0.0	.500	16.0 [16.0–16.0]	15.3 [15.2–15.6]	0.5	<.001
Weighted median of differences				0.8	<0.001	0.3	0.232			1.4	<.001

IG: impaction group; CG: control group; DA: dental age; CA: chronological age.

Comparisons of DA between the IG and CG, and DA versus CA within the IG and CG. Data shown are the median [25th–75th percentile] values.

Table 4. DA and CA for female patients with respect to chronological age groups.

Females		Impaction group (n = 346)				Comparison of IG vs CG		Control group (n = 346)
Age group, years	Number of patients	DA	CA	Median of differences DA − CA	p-Value	Median of differences DA − DA	p-Value	DA	CA	Median of differences DA − CA	p-Value
9–10	31	11.7 [10.4–12.2]	10.4 [10.0–10.7]	1.2	<.001	−0.5	.458	11.3 [10.4–12.0]	10.4 [10.0–10.7]	1.1	.001
11	43	12.8 [12.2–13.7]	11.6 [11.3–11.7]	1.3	<.001	0.0	.875	13.1 [11.8–13.7]	11.5 [11.3–11.7]	1.6	<.001
12	95	13.5 [12.8–14.3]	12.4 [12.1–12.6]	1.1	<.001	0.5	.003	13.7 [13.5–14.6]	12.4 [12.1–12.6]	1.5	<.001
13	82	13.7 [13.1–13.6]	13.4 [13.2–13.6]	0.6	<.001	0.2	.005	14.6 [13.7–16.0]	13.4 [13.2–13.6]	1.1	<.001
14	65	14.6 [13.7–16.0]	14.4 [14.2–14.7]	0.5	.033	0.0	.371	16.0 [13.7–16.0]	14.4 [14.2–14.7]	1.1	.001
15	30	16.0 [14.6–16.0]	15.5 [15.2–15.6]	0.4	.265	0.0	.267	16.0 [14.9–16.0]	15.5 [15.2–15.6]	0.5	.024
Weighted median of differences				0.6	<0.001	0.2	<0.001			1.1	<.001

IG: impaction group; CG: control group; DA: dental age; CA: chronological age.

Comparisons of DA between the IG and CG, and DA versus CA within the IG and CG. Data shown are the median [25th–75th percentile] values.

Table 5. DA and CA for all patients with respect to the position of the IMC.

Total		Impaction group (n = 486)				Comparison of IG vs CG			Control group (n = 486)
Position	Number of patients	DA	CA	Median of differences DA − CA	p-Value	Median of differences DA − DA	Mean difference DA − DA	p-Value	DA	CA	Median of differences DA − CA	p-Value
Buccal	112	13.5 [12.4–14.6]	12.7 [11.4–13.6]	0.8	<.001	0.2	0.4	.054	14.2 [12.5–15.8]	12.7 [11.4–13.6]	1.2	<.001
Central	42	13.6 [12.6–14.6]	13.2 [12.0–13.8]	0.5	.088	0.3	0.2	.200	13.7 [12.5–15.4]	13.2 [12.0–13.8]	0.7	.001
Palatal	332	13.9 [13.0–15.8]	13.3 [12.3–14.3]	0.9	<.001	0.0	0.3	.005	14.6 [13.6–16.0]	13.3 [12.3–14.3]	1.2	<.001

IMC: impacted maxillary canines; IG: impaction group; CG: control group; DA: dental age; CA: chronological age.

Comparisons of DA between the IG and CG, and DA versus CA within the IG and CG. Patients with bilaterally different positions of the impacted maxillary canines were excluded. Shown are the median [25th–75th percentile] values.

Becker A, Chaushu S. Dental age in maxillary canine ectopia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000;117(6):657–662.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rozylo-Kalinowska I, Kolasa-Raczka A, Kalinowski P. Dental age in patients with impacted maxillary canines related to the position of the impacted teeth. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(5):492–497.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Naser DH, Abu Alhaija ES, Al-Khateeb SN. Dental age assessment in patients with maxillary canine displacement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(6):848–855.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sajnani AK, King NM. The sequential hypothesis of impaction of maxillary canine - a hypothesis based on clinical and radiographic findings. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012;40(8):e375.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar