English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective To investigate the position of the upper central incisor roots (U1) relative to the incisive canal (IC) among subjects with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion in various facial growth patterns. Materials and Methods 240 cone beam computed tomography images of skeletal Class I and II maxillary or bimaxillary protrusive subjects with a mean age of 23.74 ± 3.73 years were enrolled according to their facial growth pattern. The IC volume was measured using Mimics 21 software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). The U1 inter-root distance, width of IC, and their proximity were estimated using Invivo6 software (Anatomage, San Jose, CA). Results The IC volume was slightly greater among the high angle facial group and female patients than the other groups. Overall, the IC width was greater than the U1 inter-root distance in 55.65%, 57.6%, and 65% among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively, and in 56.5% and 62.9% of males and females, respectively. The overall anteroposterior (sagittal) distances between the U1 roots and IC were 4.36 ± 1.18, 4.78 ± 1.17, and 3.83 ± 0.90 mm among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively. Conclusions The high angle facial group and female patients showed slightly greater IC dimensions than the other groups. The overall maximum sagittal distances between the U1 and IC were around 5.5, 6, and 4.7 mm among the average, low, and high angle facial groups, respectively. The low angle facial group and male patients tended to have greater sagittal distances. Therefore, the present findings could serve as a guideline when a considerable amount of upper incisor retraction is planned for Class I or II maxillary or bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion patients.

Proximity of upper central incisors to incisive canal among subjects with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion in various facial growth patterns: