• Users Online: 168
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 153-156

Prevalence of selected dental anomalies in children and adolescents in Turkey


1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
2 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey

Date of Submission04-Apr-2022
Date of Decision18-Apr-2022
Date of Acceptance24-Apr-2022
Date of Web Publication14-Sep-2022

Correspondence Address:
Ebru Hazar Bodrumlu
DDS, PHD, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, 67600, Kozlu, Zonguldak
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_7_22

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Aim
This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of dental anomalies and the tendency of dental anomalies among the teeth in Turkey.
Patients and methods
This retrospective study was designed on panoramic radiographs of randomly selected 4105 patients that applied to Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Faculty of Dentistry. In the study, nine types of dental anomalies were analyzed statistically on the panoramic radiography images of the patients, including one supernumerary teeth, odontoma, congenitally missing teeth, ectopic eruption, rotation, impacted teeth, fusion, dilaceration, and morphological defects.
Results
The prevalence of a dental anomaly among all evaluated patients was 26.7%. The most common anomaly was found to be congenital missing teeth with a prevalence of 14.2%. Odontoma was found to be the least common anomaly with a prevalence of 01%. Congenital missing teeth were most frequently observed in the mandibular second premolar.
Conclusion
The prevalence of dental anomalies in the study population was very high. Nine different anomalies were detected and congenitally missing teeth are the most common developmental dental anomaly in the study. The prevalence of dental anomalies may vary and early diagnosis of dental anomalies is important for treatment planning and success.

Keywords: adolescent, child, dental anomaly


How to cite this article:
Bodrumlu EH, Tazegül F&. Prevalence of selected dental anomalies in children and adolescents in Turkey. Tanta Dent J 2022;19:153-6

How to cite this URL:
Bodrumlu EH, Tazegül F&. Prevalence of selected dental anomalies in children and adolescents in Turkey. Tanta Dent J [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 1];19:153-6. Available from: http://www.tmj.eg.net/text.asp?2022/19/3/153/356085




  Introduction Top


Dental anomalies are alterations in the tooth structure that may be caused by genetic and environmental factors during tooth development [1],[2]. Trauma, radiation, infection, and hormonal factors are environmental factors that can cause dental anomalies. The complex interactions between these factors during dental development cause abnormal changes in tooth development and the occurrence of dental anomalies [3].

Dental anomalies can cause caries and periodontal disease development, aesthetic phonation, and functional disorders [4]. It has been reported that the rate of plaque formation is higher in patients with dental anomalies in primary and permanent dentition compared to those without dental anomalies, and dental caries are more common due to poor oral hygiene [5]. In addition, endodontic treatments and tooth extraction procedures for teeth with dental anomalies can cause difficulties for the dentist. Therefore, the presence of anomalies should be evaluated before dental treatments [6]. Dental anomalies can be diagnosed clinically and are important for treatment planning. In addition, the presence of multiple dental anomalies may suggest some syndromes. For these reasons, the prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies gain importance.

There are many studies investigating the prevalence of dental anomalies, but it is seen that there are differences between the results of these studies. Therefore, population-specific prevalence studies should be conducted to provide more reliable information about dental anomalies to dentists. The prevalence of dental anomalies may vary between countries and due to these differences, separate studies should be conducted for each country. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of dental anomalies and differences between sexes in children and adolescents in Turkey.


  Patients and methods Top


This study was designed retrospectively on routine panoramic radiographs taken from patients who applied to Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry due to various dental problems. For this purpose, panoramic radiography images of 4105 randomly selected patients were evaluated according to the presence of dental anomalies by two investigators. Children with a history of tooth extraction due to any systemic disease or syndrome, cleft lip-palate, caries, trauma or orthodontic reasons were not included in the study. In addition, third molars were not included in the study. Radiographic examination was performed using panoramic radiographs taken routinely for examination. In the study, nine types of anomalies, including supernumerary teeth, odontoma, congenitally missing teeth, ectopic eruption, rotation, impacted teeth, fusion, dilaceration, and morphological defects, which were detected on panoramic radiography images of the patients, were statistically analyzed according to the distribution of the sex.

Statistical method

Data were analyzed with the IBM SPSS, V23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) program. The presence of anomaly according to sex was examined with the χ2 test. Analysis results were presented as frequency (percentage). The significance level was taken as P value less than 0.05.


  Results Top


The examination records of a total of 4105 patients between the ages of 3–18, including 2212 girls and 1893 boys, were evaluated in the study. The mean age was found to be 10.8 ± 3.4. The prevalence of a dental anomaly among all evaluated patients was 26.7%. The prevalence of dental anomalies in girls was 27.1%, while it was 26.1% in boys. In our study, there was no statistical difference between boys and girls in terms of the presence of dental anomalies [Table 1].
Table 1: Demographic analysis

Click here to view


Congenital missing teeth in 14.2%, impacted teeth in 11%, ectopic eruption in 9.2%, rotation in 8.9%, supernumerary teeth in 3%, dilaceration in 0.4%, odontoma in 0.1% was detected of the patients. According to the results of the study, congenitally missing teeth is the dental anomaly with the highest prevalence [Table 2]. Congenital missing teeth were most frequently observed in teeth 35, 45, and 12 (18.5, 18.3, 14.7%, respectively). Impacted teeth are the most common dental anomaly after congenital missing teeth. The most frequently impacted teeth are numbered 23, 13, and 35 (28.6, 26.2, 10.6%, respectively) [Table 3].
Table 2: Distribution of dental anomalies

Click here to view
Table 3: Distribution of impacted teeth and germ deficiency according to teeth

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Genetic and environmental factors play an important role in the formation of dental anomalies. However, inherited genetic disorders are thought to be largely responsible for the formation of dental anomalies. In addition, some environmental and pathological factors are among the etiological causes [7]. When the literature is evaluated; The results of similar studies to determine the prevalence of dental anomalies differ and the frequency of dental anomalies is seen to vary between 1.73 and 74% [8],[9],[10]. In the study of Altug-Atac and Erdem [11], in which they evaluated 3034 patients aged 8–15 years in Turkey, the prevalence of dental anomalies were found to be 5.46%. In a study conducted by Afify and Zawawi [12] among 1252 patients aged 5–12 years in Arabia, the prevalence of dental anomalies was 22.68%, while Laganà et al. [13] in Italy, the prevalence of dental anomalies was reported as 20.9% in 4706 patients aged 8–12 years. Similarly, the prevalence of dental anomalies was found to be 26.7% in this study. The different results of studies examining anomalies may be associated with genetic disorders, environmental and ethnic factors. In particular, genetic factors can be considered as the reason for the differences between studies. There are great differences in the literature depending on ethnic groups. While the prevalence is 1% in Africans and Australian Aborigines, it is 30 times higher in Japanese [14]. Besides, the design of the studies, the method applied, the criteria for determining the population also affect the results of the studies. For example, when a study is conducted on a population consisting only of patients with cleft lip and palate, the results will be higher than the general population in the population, since the prevalence of dental anomalies is higher in patients with cleft lip and palate. Our study provides more reliable results in terms of reflecting the general population, as it consists of veri from randomly selected patients who applied to the hospital to be examined.

In studies evaluating dental anomalies, the prevalence of congenital tooth deficiency in permanent dentition, excluding third molars, was found to be between 0.15 and 16.3% [15]. In this study, it was observed that the most common anomaly among dental anomalies was congenital tooth deficiency with a rate of 14.2%. Similarly, Patil et al. [16] in India, the dental anomaly with the highest prevalence was congenital tooth deficiency with a rate of 16.3%. In a study conducted by Afify and Zawawi in Arabia, this rate was stated as 22.68%, and it was reported that congenital tooth deficiency was the most common anomaly. Aren et al. [17] also reported in their study in Turkey that the dental anomaly with the highest prevalence was congenital tooth deficiency with a rate of 1.77%.

The tooth groups reported to be congenitally missing may vary in different ethnic groups. While the most common missing teeth are the maxillary lateral incisors in American children, it is the mandibular second premolar in European children [18]. As a result of our research, the teeth with the most congenital missing teeth are mandibular second premolars. Mandibular second premolar teeth were similarly reported as the tooth group with the highest congenital tooth deficiency in studies conducted on the Turkish population [19],[20],[21].

In this study, impacted teeth are in second place with a rate of 11%. Different results were obtained in studies evaluating the prevalence of impacted teeth. Saberi and Ebrahimipour [2], the prevalence of impacted teeth was reported as 3.4%, Bilge et al. [22] reported the prevalence of impacted teeth as 45.5%.

Although hereditary differences are stated as the most effective factor in the formation of impacted teeth, environmental factors also play a role. In societies with poor oral hygiene, early loss of primary teeth also affects permanent dentition. This leads to crooked and impacted teeth [23]. In addition, whether or not the third molars were included in the study, the young population included in the study, and ethnic differences can be considered as the reasons for the difference in the results of the study.

Among the positional anomalies, the prevalence of ectopic eruption has been reported to be between 0.01 and 8.9% [8],[16],[24]. Similar to the literature, the prevalence of the ectopic eruption was found to be 9.2% in this study. Rotation is another common position anomaly due to multifactorial etiology including disturbances during the eruption period. There are wide variations in the prevalence of rotated teeth in prevalence studies. Gupta et al. [8] reported the prevalence of rotation as 10.24% in a study by Kathariya et al. [25], this prevalence was reported as 13.2%. In this study, the prevalence of rotation was found to be 8.9%.

Studies have shown that the prevalence of supernumerary teeth varies between 0.2 and 4.25% [19],[26],[27]. Esenlik et al. [28] reported the prevalence of supernumerary teeth as 2.7% in their study in which they evaluated 2599 patients. Consistent with the literature, the prevalence of supernumerary teeth was found to be 3% in our study. According to the results of our study, odontoma and dilaceration were found less frequently than other dental anomalies. Almaz et al. [29] the prevalence of odontoma was 0.1%, while the prevalence of dilaceration was 0.02%, Patil et al. [16], the prevalence of odontoma was reported as 0.2% and the prevalence of dilaceration was 0.5%. Similarly, in our study, the prevalence of odontoma was found to be 0.1%, while the prevalence of dilaceration was found to be 0.4%.

In our study, it was seen that the prevalence of various dental anomalies showed similarities and differences with other similar studies. This may be due to reasons such as patient selection, methods used, sample size and patient selection area. In addition, factors such as ethnical differences, nutrition, brushing habits, and access to dental services can be counted as other reasons for the inconsistent results. Dental anomalies are also among the causes of orthodontic treatment, and therefore, the prevalence of dental anomalies in studies evaluating orthodontic patients may be higher than in studies evaluating patients in the general population. In our study, dental anomaly evaluation was made in patients with general dental problems, but it was not limited to orthodontic patients. For this reason, more reliable results emerge compared to studies conducted with orthodontic patients.


  Conclusion Top


The prevalence of dental anomalies in the study population was very high. Nine different anomalies were detected and congenitally missing teeth are the most common developmental dental anomaly in our study population. The anomalies that are mostly seen after congenitally missing teeth are impacted tooth, ectopic eruption, and rotation, respectively. This is followed by an impacted tooth anomaly. The prevalence of dental anomalies may vary between societies. This situation especially shows the effect of genetic factors on these anomalies. Early diagnosis and detection of dental anomalies are important for treatment planning and success.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Neville BW, Damm DD, Allen CM, Chi AC. Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. 4th ed., Elsevier, Missouri: WB Saunders; 2016.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Saberi EA, Ebrahimipour S. Evaluation of developmental dental anomalies in digital panoramic radiographs in Southeast Iranian Population. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2016; 6:291–295.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Brook AH. Multi level complex interactions between genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors in the aetiology of anomalies of dental development. Arch Oral Biol 2009; 54:3–17.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Uslu Ö, Akcam O, Evirgen Ş, Cebeci İ. Prevalence of dental anomalies in various malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135:328–335.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kim MJ, Song JS, Kim YJ, Kim JW, Jang KT, Hyun HK. Clinical considerations for dental management of children with molar-root incisor malformations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020; 44:55–59.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Jukić J, Škrinjarić I, Glavina D, Ulovec Z. The prevalence of oral and dental anomalies in children with developmental disturbances. Acta Stomat Croat 2002; 36:79–83.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Ghaznawi H, Daas H, Salako N. A clinical and radiographic survey of selected dental anomalies and conditions in Saudi Arabian population. Saudi Dent J 1999; 11:8–13.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Gupta SK, Saxena P, Jain S, Jain D. Prevalence and distribution of selected developmental dental anomalies in an Indian population. J Oral Sci 2011; 53:231–238.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Guttal KS, Naikmasur VG, Bhargava P, Bathi RJ. Frequency of developmental dental anomalies in the Indian population. Eur J Dent 2010; 4:263–269.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Thongudomporn U, Freer TJ. Prevalence of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Aust Dent J 1998; 43:395–398.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Altug-Atac AT, Erdem D. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131:510–514.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Afify AR, Zawawi KH. The prevalence of dental anomalies in the western region of Saudi Arabia. ISRN Dent 2012; 2012:837270.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Laganà G, Venza N, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Fabi F, Danesi C, Cozza P. Dental anomalies: prevalence and associations between them in a large sample of non-orthodontic subjects, a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17:62.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Nunn JH, Carter NE, Gillgrass TJ, Hobson RS, Jepson NJ, Meechan JG, et al. The interdisciplinary management of hypodontia: background and role of paediatric dentistry. Br Dent J 2003; 194:245–251.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Rakhshan V. Congenitally missing teeth (hypodontia): a review of the literature concerning the etiology, prevalence, risk factors, patterns and treatment. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2015; 12:1–13.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Patil S, Doni B, Kaswan S, Rahman F. Prevalence of dental anomalies in Indian population. J Clin Exp Dent 2013; 5:e18.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Aren G, Guven Y, Guney Tolgay C, Ozcan I, Bayar OF, Kose TE, et al. The prevalence of dental anomalies in a Turkish population. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2015; 49:23–28.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Nordgarden H, Jensen JL, Storhaug K. Reported prevalence of congenitally missing teeth in two Norwegian counties. Community Dent Health 2002; 19:258–261.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Sümer APAT, Köprülü H. Dental anomalies in children: panoramic radiographic evaluation. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniv Dis Hekim Fak Derg 2004; 5:81–84.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Uzamış MTT, Kansu Ö, Alpar R. Evaluation of dental anomalies in 6-13 year old Turkish children: a panoramic survey. J Marmara Univ Dent Fac 2001; 4:254–259.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Demiriz L, Bodrumlu EH, Kokturk F. Patterns of incisor-premolar agenesis combinations: A retrospective study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017; 35:51–55.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
22.
Bilge NH, Yeşiltepe S, Törenek Ağırman K, Çağlayan F, Bilge OM. Investigation of prevalence of dental anomalies by using digital panoramic radiographs. Folia Morphol 2017; 77:323–328.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Koparal M, Ünsal HY, Turker Alan H, Yalçın M, Ege B. The incidence of seven different dental anomalies in southeastern of Turkey. Selcuk Dent J 2018; 5:135–141.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Erkmen Almaz M, Şaroğlu Sönmez I, Akbay Oba A. Prevalence and distribution of developmental dental anomalies in pediatric patients. Meandros Med Dent J 2017; 18:130–133.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Kathariya MD, Nikam AP, Chopra K, Patil NN, Raheja H, Kathariya R. Prevalence of dental anomalies among school going children in India. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5:10–14.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Pallikaraki G, Sifakakis I, Gizani S, Makou M, Mitsea A. Developmental dental anomalies assessed by panoramic radiographs in a Greek orthodontic population sample. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2020; 21:223–228.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Subasioglu A, Savas S, Kucukyilmaz E, Kesim S, Yagci A, Dundar M. Genetic arka plân of supernumerary teeth. Eur J Dent 2015; 9:153–158.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
28.
Esenlik E, Sayin MO, Atilla AO, Ozen T, Altun C, Başak F. Supernumerary teeth in a Turkish population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136:848–852.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Almaz ME, Sönmez IS, Akbay A. Developmental dental anomalies in pediatric patients. Meandros Med Dent J 2017; 18:130–133.  Back to cited text no. 29
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Patients and methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed62    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded13    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]