Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine relationship is a key reference identifying anterior malocclusion and an important implication for evaluating preimplantation bone morphology at maxillary esthetic zone. This study aimed to compare the differences of maxillary central incisor-related measurements (alveolar bone thickness and tooth sagittal angulation) between Class I and Class III canine relationship and further explore the risk factors for immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data. METHODS: CBCT digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) files of 107 patients (54 with Class I canine relationship and 53 with Class III canine relationship) were collected and the alveolar bone thickness at mid-root (mid-root buccal thickness/MBT; palatal/MPT), apical regions (apical buccal thickness/ABT; palatal/APT) and sagittal angulation (SA) of the maxillary central incisor at the examined side were measured on the mid-sagittal observation plane. Descriptive statistical analysis and frequency distributions of the measurements based on Class I or Class III canine relationship were established. Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test, independent samples t test and Pearson correlation test with the significance level set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The frequency distributions of maxillary central incisors' MPT, ABT, APT and SA showed significant differences between Class I and Class III canine relationships (p = 0.030, 0.024, 0.000 and 0.000, respectively). MPT (2.48 ± 0.88 mm vs. 3.01 ± 1.04 mm, p = 0.005), APT (6.79 ± 1.65 mm vs. 8.47 ± 1.93 mm, p = 0.000) and SA (12.23 ± 5.62° vs. 16.42 ± 4.49°, p = 0.000) were significantly smaller in patients with Class III canine relationship. Moreover, SA showed a strong positive correlation with APT (R = 0.723, p = 0.000) and a moderate negative correlation with ABT (R = - 0.554, p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: In populations with Class III canine relationship, maxillary central incisors were significantly more labially inclined and have a thinner palatal bone plate at the apex compared with Class I relationship. Clinicians should avoid palatal perforation during immediate implantation at sites of originally protrusive maxillary incisors.