Impacted canines and premolars root dilaceration. Is there a relationship? A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dental arch anomalies can result from disrupted tooth development processes. While maxillary canine impaction is a common clinical challenge with multiple known causes, the relationship between premolar root abnormalities and canine impaction remains understudied. This study investigates the association between maxillary canine impaction and premolar root dilaceration.Methods Analysis was performed on 5,181 cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans to identify cases of maxillary impacted canines (IC) and premolar root dilaceration (PRD). Multiplanar reconstructions and three-dimensional imaging were used to characterize the location and features of both conditions. Statistical associations were assessed using Fisher’s exact test, and odds ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals through bivariate logistic regression.Results The overall incidence was 2.35% for impacted canines, while premolar root dilaceration occurred in 2.18% of first premolars and 1.21% of second premolars. Of 151 CBCT scans (2.92%) showing either condition, 96 scans (63.6%) revealed impacted canines, totalling 122 impactions. Notably, 86 scans (57%) showed PRD and impacted canines. Statistical analysis revealed a significant association between impacted canines and PRD in first and second premolars.Conclusion The findings suggest that premolar root dilaceration is an important indicator for maxillary canine impaction, potentially playing a significant role in its aetiology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".