open access

Vol 77, No 2 (2018)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2017-09-06
Submitted: 2017-05-31
Accepted: 2017-07-24
Get Citation

Investigation of prevalence of dental anomalies by using digital panoramic radiographs

N.H. Bilge, S. Yeşiltepe, K. Törenek Ağırman, F. Çağlayan, O.M. Bilge
DOI: 10.5603/FM.a2017.0087
·
Pubmed: 28933802
·
Folia Morphol 2018;77(2):323-328.

open access

Vol 77, No 2 (2018)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2017-09-06
Submitted: 2017-05-31
Accepted: 2017-07-24

Abstract

Background: This study was performed to evaluate the prevalence of all types and subtypes of dental anomalies among 6- to 40-year-old patients by using panoramic radiographs.

Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted by analysing digital panoramic radiographs of 1200 patients admitted to our clinic in 2014. Dental anomalies were examined under 5 types and 16 subtypes. Dental ano­malies were divided into 5 types: (a) number (including hypodontia, oligodontia and hyperdontia); (b) size (including microdontia and macrodontia); (c) structure (including amelogenesis imperfecta, dentinogenesis imperfecta and dentin dys­plasia); (d) position (including transposition, ectopia, displacement, impaction and inversion); (e) shape (including fusion-gemination, dilaceration and taurodontism).

Results: The prevalence of dental anomalies diagnosed by panoramic radiographs was 39.2% (46% in men and 54% in women). Anomalies of position (60.8%) and shape (27.8%) were the most common types of abnormalities and anomalies of size (8.2%), structure (0.2%) and number (17%) were the least in both genders. Anomalies of impaction (45.5%), dilacerations (16.3%), hypodontia (13.8%) and taurodontism (11.2%) were the most common subtypes of dental anomalies. Taurodontism was more common in the age groups of 13–19 years. The age range of the most frequent of all other anomalies was 20–29.

Conclusions: Anomalies of tooth position were the most common type of dental anomalies and structure anomalies were the least common in this Turkish po­pulation. The frequency and type of dental anomalies vary within and between populations, confirming the role of racial factors in the prevalence of dental ano­malies. Digital panoramic radiography is a very useful method for the detection of dental anomalies. (Folia Morphol 2018; 77, 2: 323–328)

Abstract

Background: This study was performed to evaluate the prevalence of all types and subtypes of dental anomalies among 6- to 40-year-old patients by using panoramic radiographs.

Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted by analysing digital panoramic radiographs of 1200 patients admitted to our clinic in 2014. Dental anomalies were examined under 5 types and 16 subtypes. Dental ano­malies were divided into 5 types: (a) number (including hypodontia, oligodontia and hyperdontia); (b) size (including microdontia and macrodontia); (c) structure (including amelogenesis imperfecta, dentinogenesis imperfecta and dentin dys­plasia); (d) position (including transposition, ectopia, displacement, impaction and inversion); (e) shape (including fusion-gemination, dilaceration and taurodontism).

Results: The prevalence of dental anomalies diagnosed by panoramic radiographs was 39.2% (46% in men and 54% in women). Anomalies of position (60.8%) and shape (27.8%) were the most common types of abnormalities and anomalies of size (8.2%), structure (0.2%) and number (17%) were the least in both genders. Anomalies of impaction (45.5%), dilacerations (16.3%), hypodontia (13.8%) and taurodontism (11.2%) were the most common subtypes of dental anomalies. Taurodontism was more common in the age groups of 13–19 years. The age range of the most frequent of all other anomalies was 20–29.

Conclusions: Anomalies of tooth position were the most common type of dental anomalies and structure anomalies were the least common in this Turkish po­pulation. The frequency and type of dental anomalies vary within and between populations, confirming the role of racial factors in the prevalence of dental ano­malies. Digital panoramic radiography is a very useful method for the detection of dental anomalies. (Folia Morphol 2018; 77, 2: 323–328)

Get Citation

Keywords

digital panoramic radiographs, dental anomalies, anomalies of position

About this article
Title

Investigation of prevalence of dental anomalies by using digital panoramic radiographs

Journal

Folia Morphologica

Issue

Vol 77, No 2 (2018)

Pages

323-328

Published online

2017-09-06

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2017.0087

Pubmed

28933802

Bibliographic record

Folia Morphol 2018;77(2):323-328.

Keywords

digital panoramic radiographs
dental anomalies
anomalies of position

Authors

N.H. Bilge
S. Yeşiltepe
K. Törenek Ağırman
F. Çağlayan
O.M. Bilge

References (26)
  1. Benediktsdottir IS, Hintze H, Petersen JK, et al. Accuracy of digital and film panoramic radiographs for assessment of position and morphology of mandibular third molars and prevalence of dental anomalies and pathologies. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003; 32(2): 109–115.
  2. Buenviaje TM, Rapp R. Dental anomalies in children: a clinical and radiographic survey. ASDC J Dent Child. 1984; 51(1): 42–46.
  3. Collins MA, Mauriello SM, Tyndall DA, et al. Dental anomalies associated with amelogenesis imperfecta: a radiographic assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999; 88(3): 358–364.
  4. Dalili Z, Nemati S, Dolatabadi N, et al. Prevalence of developmental and acquired dental anomalies on digital panoramic radiography in patients attending the dental faculty of rasht, iran. J Dentomaxillofac Radiol Pathol Surg. 2013; 1(2): 24–32.
  5. Darwazeh AM, Hamasha AA, Pillai K. Prevalence of taurodontism in Jordanian dental patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998; 27(3): 163–165.
  6. de Azevedo Pereira AJ FR, Fidel SR. Maxillary lateral incisor with two root canals: Fusion, gemination or dens invaginatus? Brazilian Dental J. 2000; 11: 141–146.
  7. Ezoddini AF, Sheikhha MH, Ahmadi H. Prevalence of dental developmental anomalies: a radiographic study. Community Dent Health. 2007; 24(3): 140–144.
  8. Ghabanchi J, Haghnegahdar AA, Khodadazadeh SH, et al. radiographic and clinical survey of dental anomalies in patients referring to Shiraz dental school. Shiraz Univ Dent J. 2009; 10: 26–31.
  9. Ghaznawi HI, Daas H, Salako NOA. clinical and radiographic survey of selected dental anomalies and conditions in a Saudi Arabian population. Saudi Dent J. 1999; 11: 8–13.
  10. Gupta SK, Saxena P, Jain S, et al. Prevalence and distribution of selected developmental dental anomalies in an Indian population. J Oral Sci. 2011; 53(2): 231–238.
  11. Guttal KS, Naikmasur VG, Bhargava P, et al. Frequency of developmental dental anomalies in the Indian population. Eur J Dent. 2010; 4(3): 263–269.
  12. Hagman FT. Anomalies of form and number, fused primary teeth, a correlation of the dentitions. ASDC J Dent Child. 1988; 55(5): 359–361.
  13. Hall C, Hallett K, Manton D. The association between Cri du chat syndrome and dental anomalies. J Dent Child (Chic). 2014; 81(3): 171–177.
  14. Kenneth M. Goodis, Harold E. Seltzer and Bender's dental pulp, 2nd ed. Quintessence pub History. 2002; 11(1).
  15. Jafarzadeh H, Abbott PV. Dilaceration: review of an endodontic challenge. J Endod. 2007; 33(9): 1025–1030.
  16. Kositbowornchai S, Chutimapom K, Poomat N. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in pretreatment orthodontic Thai patients. Khon Kaen Univ Dent J. 2010; 13: 92–100.
  17. MacDonald-Jankowski DS, Li TT. Taurodontism in a young adult Chinese population. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1993; 22(3): 140–144.
  18. Marques LS, Alcântara CE, Pereira LJ, et al. Down syndrome: a risk factor for malocclusion severity? Braz Oral Res. 2015; 29: 44.
  19. Neville BW, Douglas D, Allen CM, et al. Oral and maxillofacial pathology. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Saunders. 2009.
  20. Nicholls W. Dental anomalies in children with cleft lip and palate in Western Australia. Eur J Dent. 2016; 10(2): 254–258.
  21. Saberi EA, Ebrahimipour S. Evaluation of developmental dental anomalies in digital panoramic radiographs in Southeast Iranian Population. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016; 6(4): 291–295.
  22. Salem G. Prevalence of selected dental anomalies in Saudi children from Gizan region. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1989; 17(3): 162–163.
  23. Sarr M, Toure B, Kane AW, et al. [Taurodontism and the pyramidal tooth at the level of the molar. Prevalence in the Senegalese population 15 to 19 years of age]. Odontostomatol Trop. 2000; 23(89): 31–34.
  24. Shifman A, Chanannel I. Prevalence of taurodontism found in radiographic dental examination of 1,200 young adult Israeli patients. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1978; 6(4): 200–203.
  25. Shokri A, Poorolajal J, Khajeh S, et al. Prevalence of dental anomalies among 7- to 35-year-old people in Hamadan, Iran in 2012-2013 as observed using panoramic radiographs. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014; 44(1): 7–13.
  26. Uslu O, Akcam MO, Evirgen S, et al. Prevalence of dental anomalies in various malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(3): 328–335.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl