• Users Online: 223
  • 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 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 15-24

Prevalence of dental anomalies in a sample of orthodontic Egyptian patients using orthopantograms

Department of Orthodontics, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Dina O. ElAbbasy
Springs 8, Street 6, Villa 40, Dubai, PO Box 940404, United Arab Emirates

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_34_19

Rights and Permissions

Objective The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the prevalence of dental anomalies in a sample of Egyptian orthodontic patients. Patients and methods This is a retrospective study where 435 digital orthopantograms taken of patients, ranging in age from 14 to 30 years with a mean age of 19 years were studied. The patients were presented for treatment at a private practice in Cairo during the period from 2017 to 2019. The orthopantograms were reviewed for impactions (including and excluding third molars), congenitally missing teeth or hypodontia (including and excluding third molars), ectopic eruption, microdontia (peg-shaped and small-sized maxillary lateral incisors), rudimentary 8's, root dilacerations and supernumerary teeth. Results Excluding third molars, the number of patients that had at least one dental anomaly was 183 or 42.1%. The prevalence of patients with impacted teeth was 66 (15.2%), while the prevalence of congenitally missing teeth was 44 (10.1%). Equal prevalence between males and females was recorded for impacted maxillary permanent canines (M = 16, F = 16) and congenitally missing maxillary permanent canines (M = 1, F = 1). The least prevalence were microdontia (n = 15, 3.4%), dilacerated roots (n = 8, 1.8%) and supernumerary teeth (n = 8, 1.8%). Rudimentary wisdom teeth count was 12 (2.8%) out of the total sample with only maxillary third molars being affected. The prevalence of impacted third molars was 25% (n = 109, M = 27, F = 82). The prevalence of congenitally missing third molars (at least one missing third molar) was 19.3% (n = 84, M = 22, F = 62). Females showed higher prevalence than males for all anomalies except for impacted mandibular permanent canines where males were higher than females (M = 9, F = 5), impacted upper incisors and upper first premolars (M = 1, F = 0) and supernumerary teeth (M = 6, F = 2). The prevalence of patients with impacted permanent second molars was 4.6%. Conclusions Excluding third molars, the most common dental anomaly was impaction followed by teeth agenesis. The most prevalent impaction was the maxillary permanent canine and the most congenitally missing teeth were the maxillary lateral incisors. Root dilacerations and supernumerary teeth were the least common anomalies. Congenitally missing and impacted third molars constitute a large segment of dental anomalies and must be evaluated separately. A large variation exists between the different populations regarding the prevalence of the various anomalies.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded95    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal