## 3 Results  
A total of 583 patient charts were screened, and 48 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Of these, 24 patients had transverse maxillary deficiency and bilateral crossbite (study group), and 24 were sex- and age-matched controls (control group). The sample consisted of 26 males (54.2%) and 22 females (45.8%), with both groups presenting with a mean age of 9.1 \(\pm\) 1.4 years. For each patient, both canines were examined, resulting in a total of 48 canines per group (96 canines overall) being analyzed. Intra-rater agreement was calculated as 0.95, which was considered as excellent agreement.  
Patient demographics are shown in Table 1.  
Sectorial method s. Based on the previously described sector classification, a total of 2.1% of canines in the control group were at high-risk of impaction, while none of the canines in the study group were classified as high-risk. Hence, the study found no statistically significant difference in the presence of high-risk canine impaction between the two groups, according to the sector classification (_p_ = 0.500, Cramer's V = 0.103).  
Distance d. The mean distance from the occlusal plane was 16.3 \(\pm\) 6.0 mm in the study group and 15.4 \(\pm\) 6.0 mm in the control group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (_p_ = 0.879, 95% CI \(-\)2.626, 2.251, \(d\) = 0.03).  
\(\alpha\) angle. Based on the \(\alpha\) angle and a cut-off of 25\({}^{\circ}\), five canines (10.4%) in the control group were identified as being at high-risk of impaction, while none of the canines in the study group (0.0%) fell into this high-risk category, with a lack of statistically significant difference between the two groups (_p_ = 0.056, Cramer's V = 0.234). Similarly, when observing the mean \(\alpha\) angle values between the two groups, which were 10.7\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 5.3 in the study group and 12.6\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 7.6 in the control group, the mean values indicated no statistically significant difference between groups (_p_ = 0.174, 95% CI \(-\)4.574, 0.839, \(d\) = 0.28).  
Data of the radiographic parameters examined are presented in Table 2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Total** & **Study Group** & **Control Group** & \\  & **(N = 48 Children)** & **(N = 24 Children)** & **(N = 24 Children)** & \(p\) **Value** \\ \hline Gender (N, \%) & & & & \\ Females & 22/48 (45.8) & 11/24 (45.8) & 11/24 (45.8) & 1.000 \\ Males & 26/48 (54.2) & 13/24 (54.2) & 13/24 (54.2) & 13/24 (54.2) & \\ \hline Age (mean \(\pm\) SD) & & 9.1 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 9.1 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 1.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Demographics and comparison between participants in study and control groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Study Group** & **Control Group** & \\  & **(N = 48 Canines)** & **(N = 48 Canines)** & \(p\) **Value** \\ \hline Sectorial method (N, \%) & & & \\ Sector I & 41/48 (87.5) & 39/48 (81.3) & 0.497 \\ Sector II & 6/48 (12.5) & 8/48 (16.7) & \\ Sector III & 0/48 (0.0) & 1/8 (2.1) & \\ Sector IV & 0/48 (0.0) & 0/48 (0.0) & \\ Risk of impaction (N, \%) & Low risk (100.0) & Low risk (97.9) & \\  & High risk (0.0) & High risk (2.1) & 1.000 \\ \hline Distance d (mm) & 16.3 \(\pm\) 6.0 & 15.4 \(\pm\) 6.0 & 0.879 \\ \hline \hline \(\alpha\) angle (\({}^{\circ}\), mean \(\pm\) SD) & 10.7\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 5.3 & 12.6\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 7.6 & 0.174 \\  & Low risk (100.0) & Low risk (89.4) & \\ Risk of impaction (N, \%) & High risk (0.0) & High risk (10.4) & 0.056 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison between study group vs. control group in selected parameters.