hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2

Mesiodistal and Buccolingual Dimensions in Croatian Orthodontic Hypodontia Patients‘ Teeth

Antun Vidaković ; Private practice, Donji Miholjac, Croatia
Sandra Anić-Milošević ; Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gundulićeva 5, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
Daša Nikolov Borić ; Postgraduate student, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Senka Meštrović ; Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gundulićeva 5, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia

Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (171 KB) str. 12-17 preuzimanja: 2.361* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Vidaković, A., Anić-Milošević, S., Nikolov Borić, D. i Meštrović, S. (2018). Mesiodistal and Buccolingual Dimensions in Croatian Orthodontic Hypodontia Patients‘ Teeth. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 52 (1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
MLA 8th Edition
Vidaković, Antun, et al. "Mesiodistal and Buccolingual Dimensions in Croatian Orthodontic Hypodontia Patients‘ Teeth." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 52, br. 1, 2018, str. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2. Citirano 03.12.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition
Vidaković, Antun, Sandra Anić-Milošević, Daša Nikolov Borić i Senka Meštrović. "Mesiodistal and Buccolingual Dimensions in Croatian Orthodontic Hypodontia Patients‘ Teeth." Acta stomatologica Croatica 52, br. 1 (2018): 12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
Harvard
Vidaković, A., et al. (2018). 'Mesiodistal and Buccolingual Dimensions in Croatian Orthodontic Hypodontia Patients‘ Teeth', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 52(1), str. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
Vancouver
Vidaković A, Anić-Milošević S, Nikolov Borić D, Meštrović S. Mesiodistal and Buccolingual Dimensions in Croatian Orthodontic Hypodontia Patients‘ Teeth. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2018 [pristupljeno 03.12.2020.];52(1):12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
IEEE
A. Vidaković, S. Anić-Milošević, D. Nikolov Borić i S. Meštrović, "Mesiodistal and Buccolingual Dimensions in Croatian Orthodontic Hypodontia Patients‘ Teeth", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.52, br. 1, str. 12-17, 2018. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (171 KB) str. 12-17 preuzimanja: 96* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Vidaković, A., Anić-Milošević, S., Nikolov Borić, D. i Meštrović, S. (2018). Meziodistalne i bukolingvalne dimenzije zuba pacijenata s hipodoncijom u hrvatskoj populaciji. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 52 (1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
MLA 8th Edition
Vidaković, Antun, et al. "Meziodistalne i bukolingvalne dimenzije zuba pacijenata s hipodoncijom u hrvatskoj populaciji." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 52, br. 1, 2018, str. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2. Citirano 03.12.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition
Vidaković, Antun, Sandra Anić-Milošević, Daša Nikolov Borić i Senka Meštrović. "Meziodistalne i bukolingvalne dimenzije zuba pacijenata s hipodoncijom u hrvatskoj populaciji." Acta stomatologica Croatica 52, br. 1 (2018): 12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
Harvard
Vidaković, A., et al. (2018). 'Meziodistalne i bukolingvalne dimenzije zuba pacijenata s hipodoncijom u hrvatskoj populaciji', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 52(1), str. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
Vancouver
Vidaković A, Anić-Milošević S, Nikolov Borić D, Meštrović S. Meziodistalne i bukolingvalne dimenzije zuba pacijenata s hipodoncijom u hrvatskoj populaciji. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2018 [pristupljeno 03.12.2020.];52(1):12-17. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2
IEEE
A. Vidaković, S. Anić-Milošević, D. Nikolov Borić i S. Meštrović, "Meziodistalne i bukolingvalne dimenzije zuba pacijenata s hipodoncijom u hrvatskoj populaciji", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.52, br. 1, str. 12-17, 2018. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc52/1/2

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
Objective: This study compared mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) tooth dimensions of hypodontia patients with a control group with complete dentition. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in tooth sizes between hypodontia patients and the controls. Methods: The sample comprised 76 patients with hypodontia (50 female and 26 male) aged between 11 and 18 years. The control group comprised 50 females and 26 males with the same age range as the study group. Mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) dimensions were measured on pretreatment dental casts with a digital caliper to the nearest 0.01 mm. The data were analyzed using Statistica 7.1 (StatSoft Inc.) statistical package (descriptive statistics, test of distribution normality, parametric statistics). Results: The most common congenitally missing teeth were the lower second premolars (left 13.45% and right 13.90%) and upper lateral incisors (both left and right 12.56%), followed by upper second premolars (right 9.4o% and left 10.31%). The greatest differences between the study and control group were found in upper lateral incisors, 8.08% in MD and 6.40% in BL dimension. The smallest difference was found in BL dimension of lower lateral incisor (2.37%), MD dimension of lower second premolars and upper first molar (2.61%) and MD dimension of lower central incisor (2.26%). Conclusion: The teeth are smaller in subjects with hypodontia than those of the controls on average 4.02% in MD dimension and 3.85% in BL dimension. The tooth that showed the greatest difference in tooth dimension was maxillary lateral incisor.

Ključne riječi
Anodontia; Dentition; Congenital Abnormalities; Tooth

Hrčak ID: 195340

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/195340

▼ Article Information



Introduction

Hypodontia is a congenital absence of one or more teeth and is one of the most common developmental abnormalities in the permanent dentition excluding the third molars (1-3). According to the literature, the etiology of hypodontia remains unclear. It may occur due to genetic or environmental factors, or as a combination of both factors. Family and twin studies have showed that not only genetic factors but also other conditions play a role in the expression of this trait (4). Hypodontia may be present as an isolated condition or in association with syndromes (ectodermal dysplasia (5) and cleft lip and/or palate (6)). It is frequently associated with dental and skeletal malocclusions such as bimaxillary retrusion, mandibular prognathism, decreased maxillary jaw size, reduced vertical facial dimension, and peg shaped maxillary lateral incisors (7, 8). In order to achieve an esthetically pleasing dentition, patients with hypodontia often require interdisciplinary treatment, including orthodontic and restorative interventions. Tooth dimension plays a key role in decision- making about space management in the edentulous area or in managing functional occlusion. The prevalence of hypodontia in the deciduous dentition ranges from 0.1% to 0.9, whereas the prevalence of hypodontia in the permanent dentition ranges from 2.3% to 11.3% (9-12).

In the literature, the reports regarding tooth dimensions in hypodontia patients are controversial. Chung et al. (13) reported no associations between hypodontia and reduction in tooth dimensions. Yamada et al. (14) concluded that the remaining teeth were generally larger in patients with mild hypodontia, than those in the control group, except in cases when three or more teeth were missing. A significant reduction in tooth size was observed in the remaining dentition compared to the control group. Wisth et al. (15) found no difference in patients with hypodontia compared to the control group.

The aim of this study was to compare mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) tooth sizes in hypodontia patients with a control group with complete dentition. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in tooth sizes between hypodontia patients and the controls.

Material and methods

Patients

The sample was chosen from archives of Department of Orthodontics, Dental Clinic, Clinical Hospital Center Zagreb. The approval for this study was obtained by the Ethics Committee, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb. More than a thousand of patient files were reviewed by the same examiner. Hypodontia was diagnosed by radiological and clinical examinations. The sample comprised 76 patients with hypodontia (50 female and 26 male) aged between 11 and 18 years (mean age 13 ± 2.35 years). The control group comprised 50 females and 26 males with the same age range as the study group (mean age 12.54 ± 1.95 years). The inclusion criteria for both study groups consisted of full eruption of all teeth except third molars, having dental casts and pretreatment panoramic radiographs. The patients with history of permanent tooth extraction or previous orthodontic treatment and those with caries, interproximal restorations and ectopic tooth eruption were excluded from the study.

Measurement and dental dimensions

Mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) dimensions were measured on pretreatment dental casts with a digital caliper (Levior S.R.O., Kokory 381-CZ) to the nearest 0.01 mm. The MD dimension of each tooth was measured according to the method described by Moorrees et al. (16), from its mesial contact point to its distal contact point at its greatest interproximal distance. The BL dimension was measured as the greatest distance between vestibular and oral teeth surface perpendicular to the mesiodistal dimension. All the measurements, taken under natural light, were performed twice by the same operator (A.V.) who did not exceed the number of seven casts per day in order to avoid eye strain and to minimize the possibility of subjective error.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using Statistica 7.1 (StatSoft Inc.) statistical package (descriptive statistics, test of distribution normality, parametric statistics). A test of distribution normality was performed by means of the (one way/unidirectional) Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The results showed that the tested variables were normally distributed (p>0.01) and consequently parametric tests were used (t test).

Results

The distribution of agenesis by tooth type in hypodontia group is presented in Table 1.The most commonly congenitally missing teeth were the lower second premolars (left 13.45% and right 13.90%) and upper lateral incisors (both left and right 12.56%), followed by the upper second premolars (right 9.40% and left 10.31%).

Table 1 The distribution of agenesis by tooth type in hypodontia group.
ToothNo.%
15219.40
252310.31
353013.45
453113.90
122812.56
222812.56
4610.45
4752.24
2762.69
31135.83
41188.07
1741.79
3752.24
1310.45
3310.45
4310.45
2441.79
1431.35
Total223100

The paired-sample t-test was used to compare the mean values of the same dimension measured on the left and the right side of each dental arch. Since no statistically significant difference was found (p<0.05), the results were averaged for further analysis.

The differences of mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions for hypodontia patients and the control group are presented in Table 2. The average differences in tooth size between hypodontia patients and the control group were found in MD dimension (4.02%) and in BL dimension (3.85%). The greatest differences were found in the upper lateral incisors. They amounted to 8.08% in MD and 6.40% in BL dimension. The smallest difference was found in BL dimension of the lower lateral incisor (2.37%), MD dimension of the lower second premolars and the upper first molar (2.61%) and MD dimension of the lower central incisor (2.26%).

Table 2 The differences of mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions (mm) for hypodontia and control groups (t test).
ToothHypodontia groupControl groupt-testpDifference (%)
MeanSdMeanSd
Mesiodistal dimension
17.279.830.5210.20.59-3.070.003*3.79
16.2610.210.7410.480.45-2.670.0082.61
15.256.530.436.730.38-2.840.005*3.15
14.246.770.497.020.39-3.450.001*3.76
13.237.360.507.670.43-3.980.0001*4.20
12.226.310.796.820.58-4.060.0001*8.08
11.218.310.628.650.55-3.590.0004*4.10
37.4710.330.5410.450.63-0.870.3851.16
36.4610.610.7111.010.53-3.830.0002*3.73
35.456.990.477.180.45-2.110.0372.61
34.446.910.417.130.44-3.160.002*3.23
33.436.440.446.670.39-3.330.001*3.58
32.425.580.445.860.43-3.960.0001*5.01
31.415.170.385.400.36-3.500.001*4.39
Buccolingual dimension
17.2710.790.8411.110.77-2.100.0382.99
16.2610.990.7111.340.59-3.260.001*3.16
15.259.030.609.310.55-2.740.007*3.14
14.248.870.639.200.51-3.530.001*3.77
13.237.370.667.730.62-3.180.002*4.86
12.225.840.756.210.61-2.890.005*6.40
11.216.750.597.120.55-3.810.0002*5.41
37.4710.150.6410.270.50-1.080.2841.16
36.4610.310.6110.640.47-3.730.0002*3.19
35.458.200.678.510.51-2.870.005*3.81
34.447.590.627.830.53-2.560.0123.22
33.436.620.686.880.68-2.260.0253.86
32.425.890.436.030.47-1.880.0622.37
31.415.660.545.790.41-1.570.1182.26

* (p<0.05)

Discussion

Several authors (4, 17, 18) have reported that patients with congenitally missing teeth had smaller teeth in MD and BL dimensions than subjects in the control group, which was also confirmed in our study. In contrast to the above mentioned authors, Wisth et al. (15) found no statistical difference in the MD diameter of the teeth between the hypodontia group and the healthy controls, which is in concordance with Chung et al. (13) who concluded that hypodontia was not associated with reduced tooth size.

In this study, the percentage of reduction in the tooth dimensions of hypodontia group was 4.02% in MD and 3.85% in BL dimension. The greatest difference was found in MD (8.08%) and BL (6.40%) dimensions of the upper lateral incisor. The difference of 2.61%% in MD, and 3.81% in BL dimension was found for the lower second premolar. Brook et al. (17) reported that male hypodontia patients showed greater difference in BL dimension in anterior segment and in MD dimension in posterior segment of dental arch. Gungor et al. (19) found smaller MD and BL tooth dimensions in patients with severe hypodontia (six or more missing teeth) than those with mild hypodontia (two to five missing teeth), and the greatest difference was found to be MD dimension in maxillary and mandibular lateral incisors and second premolars in both hypodontia groups.

The age range of our subjects (hypodontia and controls) was 12 to 18 years. This young age group was chosen in accordance with the study of Doris et al. (20) to minimize the alteration of mesiodistal tooth dimensions due to attrition, restoration or caries. Consequently, these factors had a minimal effect on the actual MD tooth widths.

In this study, statistically significant differences in tooth sizes between hypodontia and control group were found in the teeth that are most commonly affected by hypodontia. However, the greatest difference was found for the upper lateral incisors. Ramazanzadeh et al. (21) found that the difference in tooth width between the two groups was more evident in the first and second premolars. Also, this difference was more evident in the first molars than in anterior segments. Brook et al. (18) found the greatest difference in the mandibular central incisor and maxillary lateral incisor in MD dimension and the mandibular central incisor in the BL dimension.

The results of our study point to the importance of dental measurements which should be performed for patients with hypodontia. Clinical observations have confirmed the fact that variation in tooth morphology is not only in size, but also in shape, which should be taken into consideration in orthodontic treatment planning in order to produce an occlusion that is functionally efficient, esthetic, and healthy.

Conclusions

The most commonly congenitally missing teeth in this study were the lower second premolars (left 13.45% and right 13.90%) and the upper lateral incisors (both left and right 12.56%), followed by the upper second premolars (right 9.40% and left 10.31%)

The dimensions of teeth in hypodontia groups were smaller than those in control subjects. Measurements showed that average sizes were 4.02% in mesiodistal dimension and 3.85% in buccolingual dimension. The maxillary lateral incisor showed the greatest variation in size.

Notes

[1] Conflicts of interest None declared

References

1 

Brook AH, Elcock C, Aggarwal M, Lath DL, Russell JM, Patel PI, et al. Tooth dimensions in hypodontia with a known PAX9 mutation. Arch Oral Biol. 2009 Dec;54 Suppl 1:S57–62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.05.017 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18653171

2 

Brook AH, Elcock C, al-Sharood MH, McKeown HF, Khalaf K, Smith RN. Further studies of a model for the etiology of anomalies of tooth number and size in humans. Connect Tissue Res. 2002;43(2-3):289–95. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03008200290000718 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12489172

3 

Polder BJ, Van’t Hof MA, Van der Linden FPGM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Amea-analysis oft he prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teet. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004 Jun;32(3):217–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00158.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15151692

4 

McKeown HF, Robinson DL, Elcock C, al-Sharood M, Brook AH. Tooth dimension in hypodontia patients, their unaffected relatives and a control group measured by a new image analysis system. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24(2):131–41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.2.131 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12001549

5 

Lexner MO, Bardow A, Hertz JM, Nielsen LA, Kreiborg S. Anomalies of tooth formation in hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2007 Jan;17(1):10–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00801.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17181574

6 

Shapira Y, Lubit E, Kuftinec MM. Hypodontia in children with various types of clefts. Angle Orthod. 2000 Feb;70(1):16–21. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10730671

7 

Tavajohi-Kermani H, Kapur R, Sciote JJ. Tooth agenesis and craniofacial morphology in an orthodontic population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Jul;122(1):39–47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.123948 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142896

8 

Kirzioğlu Z, Sentut T, Erturk M, Karayilmaz H. Clinical features of hypodontia and associated dental anomalies: a retrospective study. Oral Dis. 2005 Nov;11(6):399–404. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-0825.2005.01138.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16269033

9 

Whittington BR, Durward CS. Survey of anomalies in primary teeth and their correlation with the permanent dentition. N Z Dent J. 1996 Mar;92(407):4–8. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8649664

10 

Silva Meza R. Radiographic assessment of congenitally missing teeth in orthodontic patients. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003 Mar;13(2):112–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00436.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12605629

11 

Varela M, Arrieta P, Ventureira C. Non-syndromic concomitant hypodontia and supernumerary teeth in an orthodontic population. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Dec;31(6):632–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp046 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19535605

12 

Celikoglu M, Kazanci F, Miloglu O, Oztek O, Kamak H, Ceylan I. Frequency and characteristics of tooth agenesis among an orthodontic patient population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010 Sep 1;15(5):e797–801. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.15.e797 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20383097

13 

Chung CJ, Han JH, Kim KH. The pattern and prevalence of hypodontia in Koreans. Oral Dis. 2008 Oct;14(7):620–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-0825.2007.01434.x PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18248591

14 

Yamada H, Kondo S, Hanamura H, Townsend GC. Tooth size in individuals with congenitally missing teeth: a study of Japanese males. Anthropol Sci. 2010;118(2):87–93. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1537/ase.090706

15 

Wisth PJ, Thunold K, Böe O. Frequency of hypodontia in relation to tooth size and dental arch width. Acta Odontol Scand. 1974;32(3):201–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016357409002548 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4155221

16 

Moorrees CFA, Thomsen SO, Jensen E, Yen PK. Mesiodistal crown diameter of the deciduous and permanent teeth in individuals. J Dent Res. 1957 Feb;36(1):39–47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220345570360011501 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13398501

17 

Brook AH, Griffin RC, Smith RN, Townsend GC, Kaur G, Davis GR, et al. Tooth size patterns in patients with hypodontia and supernumerary teeth. Arch Oral Biol. 2009 Dec;54 Suppl 1:S63–70. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.05.016 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18675390

18 

Schalk-van der Weide Y, Steen WH, Beemer FA, Bosman F. Reductions in size and left-right asymetry of teeth in human oligodontia. Arch Oral Biol. 1994 Nov;39(11):935–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(94)90076-0 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7695506

19 

Gungor AY, Turkkahraman H. Tooth size in nonsyndromic hypodontia patients. Angle Orthod. 2013 Jan;83(1):16–21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/011112-23.1 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22578281

20 

Doris JM, Bernard BW, Kuftinec MM, Stom D. A biometric study of tooth size and dental crowding. Am J Orthod. 1981 Mar;79(3):326–36. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(81)90080-4 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6938140

21 

Ramazanzadeh BA, Ahrari F, Hajian S. Evaluation of tooth size in patients with congenitally-missing teeth. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2013 Winter;7(1):36–41. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23487169


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.

[hrvatski]

Posjeta: 2.653 *