Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study is to investigate the characteristics of dental arch dimensions in patients with isolated MLIA through comparing them with non-hypodontia control group and to compare the dental arch dimensions in UMLIA and BMLIA subgroups.

Material and Methods: Dental casts were taken for 60 sex-matched patients, within an age range of 12 - 15 years, only affected by unilateral or bilateral congenital absence of maxillary lateral incisors, excluding third molars, in order to measure some of traditionally used parameters and new parameters which were developed and have not been studied before, and to be compared with non-hypodontia control sample. The significance test for the differences in arch dimensions between hypodontia and non-hypodontia subjects was performed using Student t-test.

Results: Intercanine width and anterior length of maxilla were significantly reduced in the patients compared with that of the controls, p < .05. Moreover, both parameters were significantly reduced in the patients with bilateral agenesis compared with those who had unilateral agenesis of upper lateral incisors, p < .05. The Incisive Depth (new parameter) and its two divisions were significantly reduced in the MLIA group compared with the control one.

Conclusion: This study concluded that the influence of MLIA appears exclusively in the anterior section of maxilla (premaxilla) to be narrowed and shorter compared with the control group and the development of the premaxillary section in both transverse and sagittal directions decreases along with diminished upper lateral incisor-number.

Keywords: Agenesis; Arch Dimensions; Maxillary Lateral Incisor

References

1. Salmon D and Le Bot P. “Congenital defects of the upper lateral incisors: multivariate analysis of measurements of the other teeth, the superior arch, head and face”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 46 (1977): 245-251.
2. Celikoglu M., et al. “Frequency and characteristics of tooth agenesis among an orthodontic patient population”. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral, Cirugia Bucal 5 (2010): e797-801.
3. Mattheeuws M., et al. “Has hypodontia increased in Caucasians during the 20th century”. European Journal of Orthodontics 26 (2004): 99-103.
4. Rose JS. “A survey of congenitally missing teeth, excluding third molars, in 6000 orthodontic patients”. Dental Practice 17 (1966): 107-114.
5. Hatziotis J and Vezirdzi EC. “Congenitally missing teeth: Report of 106 cases”. In: Dental Digest (1969): 453-455.
6. Magnusson TE. “Prevalence of hypodontia and malformations of permanent teeth in Iceland”. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 5 (1977): 173-178.
7. Lynham A. “Panoramic radiographic survey of hypodontia in Australian Defense Force recruits”. Australian Dental Journal 1 (1989): 19-22.
8. Cua-Benward G., et al. “The prevalence of congenitally missing teeth in class I, II, III malocclusions”. The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 1 (1992): 15-17.
9. Polder BJ., et al. “A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teeth”. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 32 (2004): 217-226.
10. Fekonja A. “Hypodontia in orthodontically treated children”. European Journal of Orthodontics 27 (2005): 457-460.
11. Nino-Rosales ML and Patel PI. “Genes underlying familial hypodontia: A review and discussion of the role of dental hygienists in future research”. Journal of Dental Hygiene3 (2005): 1-8.
12. Talmant J. “The role of the maxillary incisors in the development of the base of the nose. Orthopedic applications”. Revue d Orthopédie Dento-Faciale 39 (2005): 297-336.
13. Pont A. “Der Zahn-Index in der Orthodontie”. Zahnarztliche Zeitschrift Orthopedic 3 (1909): 306-321.
14. Korkhaus G. “GebiB-, Kiefer- Und Gesichtsopädie”. In Bruhn, Handbuch der Zahnheilkunde, Bd. IV. Bergmann, München (1939).
15. Schmuth GPF. Kieferorthopädie, 2. Aufl”. Thieme, Stuttgart (1983).