IADR Abstract Archives
Radiological Predictors of Root Resorption in Patients with Impacted Canines
Objectives: To identify predictors of canine-induced root resorption (CIRR) in patients with impacted maxillary canines (IMCs).
Methods: A retrospective study was conducted among patients referred for localization of maxillary canines and/or suspicion of CIRR. In total, 117 patients aged 9-17 years [mean (SD) age 11.5 (1.8) years; 59.8% female; 57.3% bilateral impacted canines] comprised the study population, yielding 184 IMCs as the unit of analyses. Two oral radiologists analyzed the position and root development of the IMCs on available panoramic images, and the frequency and extent of CIRR on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Data were analyzed using logistic regression with clustered robust standard errors.
Results: Of all cases, 147 (79.9%) IMCs had caused some degree of resorption on neighboring teeth. The localization of the canine cusp tip (CCT) influenced the study outcome. Vertically, when the CCT was positioned between the apex and cementoenamel junction of the neighboring incisor, it increased the odds of CIRR by 10 times (OR=10.28; p=0.028), compared to supraapical positions. Horizontally, superimposition of either the lateral or central incisor increased the odds of CIRR by 10 times (OR=10.26; p=0.005) and 19 times (OR=19.12; p=0.038) respectively, compared to a more posterior localization of the CCT. Angulation of the IMC was also associated with CIRR; canine-occlusal plane angles 31-45 degrees, and canine-incisor angles 16-30 degrees increased the odds of CIRR by 54 times (OR=54.74; p=0.004) and 21 times (OR=21.21; p=0.019) respectively, compared to angles 0-15 degrees. Root-length exceeding crown-length with open (OR=98.91, p<0.001) or closed (OR=16.02; p=0.034) apex, increased the odds of CIRR compared to when the root-length was shorter than crown-length.
Conclusions: The strongest predictors for CIRR were IMCs with advanced root development and an open apex, canine-occlusal plane angles 31-45 degrees, canine-incisor angles 16-30 degrees, and when the CCT superimposed the central incisor.
Methods: A retrospective study was conducted among patients referred for localization of maxillary canines and/or suspicion of CIRR. In total, 117 patients aged 9-17 years [mean (SD) age 11.5 (1.8) years; 59.8% female; 57.3% bilateral impacted canines] comprised the study population, yielding 184 IMCs as the unit of analyses. Two oral radiologists analyzed the position and root development of the IMCs on available panoramic images, and the frequency and extent of CIRR on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Data were analyzed using logistic regression with clustered robust standard errors.
Results: Of all cases, 147 (79.9%) IMCs had caused some degree of resorption on neighboring teeth. The localization of the canine cusp tip (CCT) influenced the study outcome. Vertically, when the CCT was positioned between the apex and cementoenamel junction of the neighboring incisor, it increased the odds of CIRR by 10 times (OR=10.28; p=0.028), compared to supraapical positions. Horizontally, superimposition of either the lateral or central incisor increased the odds of CIRR by 10 times (OR=10.26; p=0.005) and 19 times (OR=19.12; p=0.038) respectively, compared to a more posterior localization of the CCT. Angulation of the IMC was also associated with CIRR; canine-occlusal plane angles 31-45 degrees, and canine-incisor angles 16-30 degrees increased the odds of CIRR by 54 times (OR=54.74; p=0.004) and 21 times (OR=21.21; p=0.019) respectively, compared to angles 0-15 degrees. Root-length exceeding crown-length with open (OR=98.91, p<0.001) or closed (OR=16.02; p=0.034) apex, increased the odds of CIRR compared to when the root-length was shorter than crown-length.
Conclusions: The strongest predictors for CIRR were IMCs with advanced root development and an open apex, canine-occlusal plane angles 31-45 degrees, canine-incisor angles 16-30 degrees, and when the CCT superimposed the central incisor.