749: Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients

Mona A Montassera and Mahasen Tahaa

aLecturer of Orthodontics - Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

PREVALENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF DENTAL ANOMALIES IN

ORTHODONTIC PATIENTS

- Introduction

- Objectives

- Materials and Methods

- Results

- Discussion

- Conclusions

Outline:

PREVALENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF DENTAL ANOMALIES

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

Dental anomalies in number, dimension,

morphology, position, or structure are of

importance for both patients and

orthodontists.


Meticulous examination is required to

diagnose and manage cases with dental

anomalies.


The etiology of dental anomalies could be

genetic or environmental.


Different studies showed different

percentages of dental anomalies.2-4 A

common point was the unavoidable

frequency of developmental dental

anomalies in every community.5


OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to survey

the prevalence and distribution of dental

anomalies in a sample of Egyptian

orthodontic patients.


OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES

MATERIALS AND METHODSMATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was designed as a retrospective

study.

PREVALENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF DENTAL ANOMALIESPREVALENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF DENTAL ANOMALIES

The study included examination of records of orthodontic patients who attended the orthodontic clinic during the period from 2007-2010 and met the inclusion criteria.


Study sample:



509 Egyptian orthodontic patients

312 female 197 male

Age range from 14-21

The study included the following sample:


- Pretreatment study casts.

- Panoramic and periapical x-rays.

- Intraoral photographs.

- Anamnestic data.


Study records:The study focused on examining the following records:


(1) Anomalies in number: agenesis, extra-teeth including: supernumerary, supplementary, and mesiodens.


Dental anomalies:

(2) Anomalies in shape and size: fusion, gemination, peg shaped laterals, microdontia, macrodontia, dilacerations, accessory roots.

(3) Anomalies in position: ectopic eruption including: transposition, improper angulation, impaction.

(4) Anomalies in structure: amelogenesis imperfecta, dentinogenesis imperfecta.

The study focused on the following anomalies:

RESULTSRESULTS

Table I. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies


RESULTSRESULTS

Female Male TotalAnomalies in number:Hypodontia (other than third molars) 7 5 12Hyperdontia 8 6 14Anomalies in shape and size:Fusion 0 0 0Gemination 0 1 1Microdontia&Peg shaped laterals 6 4 10Macrodontia 2 0 2Dilaceration 0 2 2Accessory roots 1 0 1Anomalies in position: Impaction 42 23 65Ectopic eruption 31 24 55Anomalies in structure:Amelogenesis imperfecta 3 1 4Dentinogenesis imperfecta 0 0 0

Table 2. Prevalence and distribution of impacted teeth


RESULTSRESULTS

Female Male Total

Second premolars 27 9 36

First premolars 2 0 2

Canines 10 8 18

Central incisors 3 6 9

Table 3. Prevalence and distribution of ectopically erupted teeth


RESULTSRESULTS

Female Male Total

Labioversion 22 11 33

Abnormal angulation 8 11 19

Transposition 1 2 3

Table 4. Prevalence and distribution of third molar agenesis


RESULTSRESULTS

Female Male Total

Maxillary 24 19 43

Mandibular 17 9 26

All third molars 8 1 9

DISCUSSIONDISCUSSION



Evidence-based dental practice demands integrating systematic assessments of clinically relevant scientific evidence with clinical expertise and the patient’s treatment needs and preferences.6

Whether dental anomalies were studied in

the whole population, orthodontic patients,

or orthodontic patients with specific

complaints could influence the results.



This study included orthodontic patients

with no syndromes and no history of

previous orthodontic treatment.

In the current study impaction of teeth was the most common dental anomaly, other than agenesis of third molars.



Early extraction of primary teeth and space loss, changes in the overlying keratinized tissue, and/or changes in the angulation of the impacted tooth are suggested causes.7,8

In the current study agenesis of maxillary lateral incisors was the most common followed by agenesis of mandibular second premolars.



However, in other studies9,10 mandibular second premolars was found to be the most commonly missed tooth.



Extra teeth were detected in 2.8 percent of the patients; 75.0 percent were in the anterior region and 25.0 percent were premolars.

In an Iranian orthodontic population the prevalence was 0.74 percent.11 In a Swiss population 86.0 percent of extra teeth were in the maxillary anterior teeth.12



The only structural anomaly that was detected in the current study was amelogenesis imperfecta.

The primary clinical problems of amelogenesis imperfecta are tooth sensitivity, loss of occlusal vertical dimension, dysfunction, and esthetics.13

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS


1- The findings of this study provide a guide for clinicians during orthodontic examination to detect dental anomalies.


2- Environmental factors could have more important influence on the prevalence of dental anomalies than genetic and racial factors in every population.


3- Impaction, ectopic eruption,

hyperdontia, hypodontia, and microdontia

were the most common dental anomalies.


4- Gemination and secondary roots were the least detected dental anomalies while, fusion and dentinogenesis imperfecta were not detected at all.

REFERENCESREFERENCES

1-Uslu O, Akcam M O, Evirgen S, Cebeci L. Prevalence of dental anomalies in various malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:328-335.

2-Gupta SK, Saxena P, Jain S, Jain D. Prevalence and distribution of selected developmental dental anomalies in an Indian population. J Oral Sci 2011;53:231-8.

3-Thongudompom U, Freer TJ. Prevalence of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Aust Dent J. 1998;43:395-398.

4-Guttal KS, Naikmasur VG, Bhargava P, Bathi RJ. Frequency of developmental dental anomalies in the Indian population. Eur J Dent 2010;4:263-269.

5-Altug-Atac AT, Erdem D. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:510-514.

6-Turpin DL. Looking for the highest level of evidence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:687.

7- Proffit WR, Fields HW, Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis:Mosby;2007 pag 130,140,141,264,450,472.



8-Bryan RA, Cole BO, Welbury RR. Retrospective analysis of factors influencing the eruption of delayed permanent incisors after supernumerary tooth removal. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2005 ;6:84-89.

9-Endo T, Ozoe R, Kubota M, Akiyama M, Shimooka S. A survey of hypodontia in Japanese orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:29-35.

10- Nordgarden H, Jensen JL, Storhaug K. Reported prevalence of congenitally missing teeth in two Norwegian counties. Community Dent Health 2002;19:258-261.

11- Vahid-Dastjerdi E, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Mahdian M, Amini N. Supernumerary teeth amongst Iranian orthodontic patients. A retrospective radiographic and clinical survey. Acta Odontol Scand. 2011;69:125-128.

12-Schmuckli R, Lipowsky C, Peltomäki T. Prevalence and Morphology of Supernumerary Teeth in the population of a Swiss Community. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2010;120:987-990.

13- Canger EM, Celenk P, Yenisey M, Odyakmaz SZ. Amelogenesis imperfect, hypoplastic type associated with some dental abnormalities: a case report. Braz Dent J 2010;21:170-174.



THANK YOUTHANK YOU

749: Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients

Health & Medicine

Transcript of 749: Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients