Congenital tooth anomalies and malocclusions: a genetic link?

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate putative relationships between different malocclusions such as Class III and Class II division 1, and congenital tooth anomalies. Two-hundred Class III and 215 Class II division 1 patients were examined for the presence of any of the following congenital tooth anomalies: maxillary incisor hypodontia, maxillary canine impaction, transpositions, supernumerary teeth, and tooth agenesis. Their occurrence rates were then calculated as a percentage of the total sample and were compared for statistical differences. The results revealed no statistical difference (P > 0.05) in the occurrence rates of upper lateral incisor agenesis, peg-shaped laterals, impacted canines, or supernumerary teeth between the Class III and the Class II division 1 malocclusions. When the occurrence rate of all congenital tooth anomalies was compared between the two malocclusions, Class III subjects showed significantly higher rates (P < 0.05). Comparison with published surveys on general populations showed similar occurrence rates. It can be concluded that subjects with Class III and Class II division 1 malocclusions show patterns of congenital tooth anomalies similar to those observed in the general population. Congenital tooth anomalies may represent another criterion for the study of malocclusion, with respect to their origin and development.

Association between dental anomalies and malocclusion in Brazilian orthodontic patients

“…In addition, dental anomalies have been associated with Class II, division 2 malocclusion (9), thus indicating a strong genetic influence in the development of this type of malocclusion (10). On the other hand, Class III and Class II, division 1 malocclusions have a pattern of occurrence of anomalies similar to that found in the general population (11).…”

“…On the other hand, Basdra et al (11) found no statistically significant differences between the anomalies and the type of malocclusion. These authors evaluated only 83 patients presenting anomalies with Class III or Class II division 1 malocclusions, a number well below the 562 patients evaluated in the current study.…”

“…Patients with impaction have higher prevalence of Class III malocclusion. Developmental dental anomalies may represent a criterion for the study of malocclusions (11), and further studies are needed in order to explain the association between dental anomalies and malocclusion.…”

“…There is no consensus among the various studies regarding the data on prevalence, distribution by gender, age and site of occurrence of the anomalies (5,6,13), highlighting the need for further reports in different populations. Impaction is significantly more frequent in Class I and Class III malocclusions in Turkish patients (5); while German patients have no anomalies associated with Class II division 1 and Class III malocclusions (11). On the other hand, impaction, agenesis and microdontia have been associated with Class II division 1 in Portuguese patients, showing correlation with retroclination of four or more maxillary anterior teeth (14).…”

Dental anomalies and clinical features in patients with maxillary canine impaction

“…1,2,11,14,22,[25][26][27] The molar class distributions for PDCG subjects mostly showed Angle Class I (50%) for both the impacted and the nonimpacted sides. BDCG patients were characterized by a prevalence of Angle Class II in the impacted side (61.3%) compared to a higher prevalence of Angle Class I in the nonimpacted side (54.8%).…”