Prevalence of Developmental and Acquired Dental Anomalies on Digital panoramic Radiography in Patients Attending the Dental Faculty of Rasht, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Many epidemiological studies have been conducted to determine the prevalence of the various types of the dental anomalies. The aim of the present study was determination of developmental and acquired dental anomalies in patients attending the faculty of dentistry in Rasht, Iran. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 1224 digital panoramic radiographs belong to 758 females and 466 males were assessed for evaluation of 10 developmental and acquired dental anomalies. This study was done in two steps; prospective and retrospective. Both clinical and radiographic evaluation of patients was conducted for diagnosis of missing teeth, talon cusp, amelogenesis imperfecta, dentinogenesis imperfecta and dentine dysplasia. The chi-square test, Fisher-Exact test, Independent t-test and Kappa were used for statistical analysis of data. Result: 396 patients (32.4%) presented at least one developmental dental anomaly and 285 patients (23.3%) had at least one acquired dental anomaly. Overall, 38.1% of 581 patients with dental anomaly were males and 61.9% of them females. Supernumerary teeth in males was more than five times higher than females (p<0.005). Pulp stone in females was 7% higher than males (p<0.005). The most prevalent anomaly was impaction (16.6%), followed by dense invagination (10.9%), dilaceration (5.6%), microdontia(3.8%), supernumerary tooth (1.1%), taurodontism(0.5%) and transposition(0.1%). Conclusion: The dental anomalies occur with different frequencies in various populations. Since, these anomalies may be the cause of various dental problems, it seems that the precise diagnosis of these anomalies is essential in the prevention of the next problems.

Investigation of prevalence of dental anomalies by using digital panoramic radiographs

“…By contrast, Saberi et al [21] reported a prevalence of tooth impaction of 3.41%. A prevalence of impaction of 16.6% was reported by Dalili et al [4], 8.3% by Ezoddini et al [7], and 2.95% by Ghabanchi et al [8] in different regions of Iran [21]; these values are much lower than those in our study. This inconsistency may have arisen because third molars were not counted as impacted teeth in the previous studies, but they were counted in our study.…”

Prevalence of dental anomalies among 7- to 35-year-old people in Hamadan, Iran in 2012-2013 as observed using panoramic radiographs

“…The most prevalent teeth with dilacerations were the maxillary second premolar and lateral incisor. The prevalence of dilacerations was reported to be 15% by Ezoddini et al, 16 1.44% by Ghabanchi et al, 19 and 5.6% by Dalili et al 18 This inconsistency might be attributed to the settings of these studies as well as the accuracy of the methods and the diagnostic criteria that were used.…”

“…Dalili et al,18 Ezoddini et al,16 and Ghabanchi et al19 reported the prevalence of impaction to be 16.6%, 8.3%, and 2.95% in different regions of Iran. This inconsistency might originate from the lack of third molar impaction.…”

Prevalence of Dental Developmental Anomalies in Patients Attending a Faculty of Dentistry in Ajman, United Arab Emirates

“…As previously discussed, the majority of studies done by investigators around the world have shown numerous variations [2,4,5,12,[19][20][21]. A plausible explanation for these observations may be due to differences in study design, diagnostic criteria, sampling techniques, racial differences, influences of environmental factors, and the effect of nutritional status on tooth development [6].…”