5. Determination of Tooth Length Variation of Canine Using CBCT – A Retrospective Study
Abdulaziz Abdulrahman Aleid
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to determine the variations in canine tooth length using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in a diverse population, examining differences across gender and age groups.
Study Design: A retrospective analysis
Place and Duration of Study: This study was conducted at the Department of Diagnostics, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, from September to November 2023.
Methods: A total of 400 CBCT scans were reviewed using the CBCT unit from Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, located in Bensheim, Hessen, Germany. The sample size was calculated to ensure a 95% confidence level with a margin of error of 0.245 mm. The study included a calibration process for examiners to ensure validity and reliability, and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0. Data collection was done using Microsoft Excel and statistical analysis was performed using the software SPSS version 21.0.
Results: The study found a higher prevalence of males (56%) in the sample. Significant gender-based differences in canine tooth length were observed, with males generally having longer canines. No significant variations in canine length across different adult age groups were noted. The mean lengths of maxillary canines were greater than those of mandibular canines.
Conclusion: This study highlights noteworthy gender variations in canine tooth length and emphasizes the uniformity of canine length across diverse adult age groups. These discoveries hold crucial significance for clinical endodontics, particularly in the context of root canal treatment planning, and contribute to gender-specific considerations in the field of forensic odontology.
Key Words: Canine Tooth Length, CBCT, Orthodontics, Forensic Odontology, Dental Anatomy, Gender Differences, Age Groups.
Citation of article: Aleid AA. Determination of Tooth Length Variation of Canine Using CBCT – A Retrospective Study. Med Forum 2024;35(2):22-26. doi:10.60110/medforum.350205.