## 4 Discussion  
Data from literature reported that patients with EEFPMM exhibit a tendency toolicobephaly [5]. The outcomes of the present investigation seem to be in accordance with such \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurements**} & **Normal Eruption** & **Ectopic Eruption** & \\  & **(26 Cases)** & **(13 Cases)** & \\ \hline  & **Media (\(\pm\)DS)** & **Media (\(\pm\)DS)** & _p-Value_ \\ \hline _Go-Me (mm)_ & 58.1 (5.5) & 60.5 (4.8) & 0.182 \\ \hline _SNP-A (mm)_ & 41.4 (3.8) & 43.5 (3.8) & 0.106 \\ \hline _SOR-SNA (mm)_ & 52.1 (3.6) & 55.3 (5.1) & 0.026 \\ \hline _SNA-Me (mm)_ & 54.2 (5.8) & 62.4 (4.7) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline _WITS (mm)_ & 0.7 (3.5) & \textless{}0.1 (5.1) & 0.562 \\ \hline _S-N (mm)_ & 62.6 (6.0) & 65.5 (5.2) & 0.145 \\ \hline _Ba-S (mm)_ & 39.5 (3.7) & 42.7 (4.3) & 0.019 \\ \hline _Sup-Sna (mm)_ & 44.4 (4.5) & 48.4 (5.7) & 0.024 \\ \hline _SNA (angle)_ & 81.3 (4.2) & 80.1 (4.3) & 0.415 \\ \hline _SNB (angle)_ & 76.2 (4.0) & 75.5 (3.2) & 0.619 \\ \hline _ANB (angle)_ & 4.9 (2.1) & 4.5 (2.6) & 0.606 \\ \hline _SnaSup-GoMe (angle)_ & 24.4 (5.3) & 30.2 (4.9) & 0.002 \\ \hline _SN-Sna-Snp (angle)_ & 10.8 (3.4) & 9.1 (3.5) & 0.148 \\ \hline _SN-GoMe (angle)_ & 35.3 (4.9) & 40.1 (4.5) & 0.005 \\ \hline _N-S-Ba (angle)_ & 131.8 (4.5) & 128.6 (5.5) & 0.063 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Lateral cephalographic analysis of normal and ectopic eruption group (mean and standard deviation). data as the study's patients showed greater values of _SN-GoMe_ and _Sna-Snp-GoMe_ angles compared to the control group. Conversely, studying the ectopic eruption of the maxillary second molars, [PERSON] et al. [13] sustain that no relationships exist between the dolichocephalic pattern or the posterior rotation of the chin and ectopic eruption since molars were disto-bucally infra-occluded, and no opening effect on the posterior occlusion occurred [13]. Also, it has been previously suggested that maxillary length plays an important role in the etiology of EEFPMM [1; 5; 10]. A smaller and retro-positioned maxilla was found in affected patients too. Nevertheless, our results do not confirm to this cephalometric feature since the maxillary length was found to be significantly greater in patients of the study group. This finding leads us to assume that local factors, especially the space available for maxillary teeth, would not have a strong influence on ectopic eruption. From this perspective, a greater emphasis could be given to genetic causes rather than local factors in the development of the EEUPFM [14]. In fact, the importance of genetic factors and their possible link with ectopic eruption was underlined by [PERSON] and [PERSON], which reported a prevalence of 19.8% in the siblings of affected children enrolled in their study [2]. In our study, a pathological eruption occurred in two siblings too. No analysis regarding the association between ectopic eruption and other dental anomalies was performed in this paper. [PERSON] et al. postulated that irreversible ectopic eruption could be an early indicator of a canine eruption leading to lateral root resorption [15]. It would be interesting to explore this association in further studies. Despite the study group showing a statistically significantly greater Go-Pg distance than the control group, the present investigation does not seem to corroborate a Class III developmental tendency in subjects with ectopic eruption [13; 16], as demonstrated by _ANB_ mean values. However, the study group showed a negative mean value of Wits parameter compared to the positive value founded in controls. Such variable difference among groups was not statistically significant. Early diagnosis of ectopic molar eruption is of great clinical importance since an appropriate treatment is needed in the majority of cases. Data from literature recommends an interceptive treatment after an observation period lasting from 3 to 6 months, if the deciduous tooth resorption is not too severe.