Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background The relationship between maxillary canine impaction and palatal morphology remains debated, as most previous studies relied on linear measurements. This study investigated three-dimensional palatal morphology in patients with and without maxillary canine impaction using geometric morphometric methods (GMM) to characterize shape variation independently of size. Methods This retrospective case-control study included 90 orthodontic patients (45 with maxillary canine impaction and 45 matched controls), with a mean age of 13.53 ± 1.59 years. Digital maxillary casts were analyzed using 239 semi-landmarks. Multiple linear regression and Procrustes MANOVA were used to assess differences in palatal size and shape, adjusting for sex and skeletal characteristics. Post-hoc comparisons were performed to assess differences between impaction types. Results Palatal size did not differ significantly by impaction status. Canine impaction was significantly associated with palatal shape ( P = 0.002), whereas sex, skeletal class, vertical pattern, and interaction terms had no significant effect. Pairwise comparisons showed a significant mean shape difference only between controls and subjects with palatally impacted canines (p adj = 0.003), whereas buccally impacted canines did not differ significantly from controls. Compared with controls, palatally impacted cases exhibited a flatter and more elongated palate. Conclusions Maxillary canine impaction, particularly palatal impaction, is associated with three-dimensional palatal shape variation rather than differences in overall size. Palatal morphology should be considered as a whole during clinical evaluation, rather than focusing exclusively on transverse dimensions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruaud et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: