## 4 Discussion  
The aim of this project was to determine the relationship between the spatial position of the impacted maxillary canine and the dimensions of the canine and adjacent lateral incisor, as well as to investigate the prevalence of the occurrence of resorption in the neighboring lateral incisor. Additionally, we aimed to examine the potential impact of the upper lateral incisor root on the inclination of the adjacent canine. In the first case, we obtained significant results; a positive correlation (+0.483) was identified between the lateral incisor crown size and the distance of the canine cusp to the bite plane (\(p\) < 0.001). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & Transv\_4\_4 & 0.135 & 47 & \(-\)0.158 & 0.407 & 0.364 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Transv\_6\_6 & \(-\)0.197 & 45 & \(-\)0.464 & 0.102 & 0.195 \\ \cline{2-6} Occluso-gingival & Dist\_Cusp C\_Ocl Plane & 0.069 & 49 & \(-\)0.217 & 0.343 & 0.639 \\  
Conversely, a negative correlation (\(-0.356\)) was noted between the lateral incisor root length and the canine angulation relative to the palatal suture (\(p=0.022\)). Two etiological factors are believed to cause impacted canines in the palate: genetic predisposition and improper orientation (due to missing or underdeveloped lateral incisors). In contrast, bucally impacted canines are thought to result from the early loss of primary teeth and deficiencies in the dental arch [37]. This fact was not taken into account in our study since all patients were in the permanent dentition. The orientation theory suggests that bilateral canine impaction is, in many cases, genetically determined [11; 38]. [PERSON] et al. [39] observed a higher percentage of bilateral impactions (107 out of 207 cases; 51.69%) and attributed this variation to differences in population samples and ethnic diversity. Studies indicate that Asian populations exhibit fewer bilateral impactions compared to individuals from multiethnic groups outside the United States [40; 41; 42; 43]. The profile of our study population was similar to that of previous studies regarding the buccal or palatal location of the impactions, with 70% being palatal and 30% buccal, and their unilateral or bilateral presence, with 52% being bilateral and 48% unilateral. However, variations in the prevalence rates reported in the literature may also stem from the use of CBCT scans in different populations, as well as non-standardized assessment tools for identifying impacted canines [44]. [PERSON] et al. [45] found that buccal displacement occurred almost as frequently as palatal displacement (38.5% and 41%, respectively), a finding that is uncommon in Caucasian populations [14]. In regard to the methodology used, [PERSON] et al. [39] mentioned that the occlusal plane is not a stable reference plane, as it is of dental origin, and it could complicate comparisons before and after treatment. In their study, they use the palatal plane to quantify the inclination of the canines, as it has a local and skeletal basis [46]. However, since our study uses only initial orthodontic records, the reference of the occlusal plane could be considered as an acceptable reference, validated by other studies [35; 36]. Moreover, in our study, we considered not only the occlusal plane but also other reference planes, such as the midline palatal suture. We noted a longer lateral incisor root and a wider mesiodistal crown diameter in cases with a greater transverse maxillary width. [PERSON] et al. [7] showed that altered or increased mesiodistal lateral crown dimensions (MD) could potentially serve as indicators of impacted canines and found that the size of the maxillary skeleton and the width of the dental arch play a crucial role in establishing the configuration and alignment of maxillary canine impaction. Concerning the type of the impaction, in our study we noted a larger angulation of the canine in cases of unilateral impactions, as well as [PERSON] et al.