## 3 Results  
Seventy-five participants were included in the study. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, or skeletal maturity between the experimental and control groups (Table 1).  
There was a significant difference between the group with impacted canines and the control group in terms of the presence of a hypoplastic lateral incisor (\(p\) = 0.004). If a patient had a hypoplastic lateral incisor, its odds for maxillary canines were 5.47 times higher.  
In the impacted canine group, 21 participants had a rotated tooth adjacent to the impacted canine, while 15 participants in the control group had a rotated lateral incisor or first premolar. There was a significant difference in the prevalence of deep bites between the groups (\(p\) = 0.017). If the patient had a rotated tooth next to the canine, its odds for maxillary canine impaction were 3.56 times higher.  
In the impacted canine group, three participants with impacted canines had infraocclusion/ankylosis of the deciduous tooth in the maxillary arch, and that applied to one participant in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the presence of deciduous teeth in the infraocclusion/ankylosis between the groups (\(p\) = 0.304). The significance of the test was low (<0.70). Further data can be found in Table 2, and the results are shown graphically in Figure 2.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Impacted Canine**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group**} \\ \hline
**Frequency (N)** & 32 & 43 & \\
**Age (years)** & 13.845 \(\pm\) 1.678 & 13.085 \(\pm\) 1.782 & \(p\) = 0.0653 (\(t\)-test) \\
**Gender** & 13 m 19 f & 19 m 24 f & \(p\) = 0.942 (Chi-square test) \\
**Skeletal maturity (CS)** & 4.241 \(\pm\) 1.347 & 3.645 \(\pm\) 1.518 & \(p\) = 0.114 (\(t\)-test) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Contingency table of the number of participants in experimental and control group: their age, gender, and skeletal maturity. There were no statistically significant differences. (m= male; f = female).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Impacted Canine**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group**} \\ \hline
**Deep bite** & **Present (N)** & **17** & **8** & *** \(p\) = 0.004** \\  & _expected_ (N) & 10.76 & 14.23 & (chi-square test) \\  & **Not present (N)** & **14** & **33** & OR = 5.01 \\  & _expected_ (N) & 20.23 & 26.76 & 95\% CI: 1.76–14.28 \\ \hline
**Hypoplastic lateral** & **Present (N)** & **15** & **6** & *** \(p\) = 0.004** \\
**incisor** & _expected_ (N) & 9.04 & 11.95 & (chi-square test) \\  & **Not present (N)** & **16** & **35** & OR = 5.47 \\  & _expected_ (N) & 21.95 & 29.04 & 95\% CI: 1.79–16.70 \\ \hline
**Rotation of adjacent** & **Present (N)** & **21** & **15** & *** \(p\) = 0.017** \\
**tooth** & _expected_ (N) & 15.50 & 20.50 & (chi-square test) \\  & **Not present (N)** & **10** & **26** & OR = 3.56 \\  & _expected_ (N) & 15.50 & 20.50 & 95\% CI: 1.36–9.35 \\ \hline
**Infraocclusion/Ankylosis** & **Present (N)** & **3** & **1** & \(p\) = 0.304 \\
**of deciduous tooth** & _expected_ (N) & 1.69 & 2.31 & (Fisher exact test) \\  & **Not present (N)** & **27** & **40** & OR = 4.44 \\  & _expected_ (N) & 28.31 & 38.69 & 95\% CI: 0.44–45.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Intraoral conditions, associated with canine impaction compare the presence of deep bite, hypoplastic lateral incisors, rotation of adjacent teeth, and infraocclusion of deciduous teeth in the maxilla between the impacted canine group to the control group.