• Users Online: 253
  • 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 : 2020  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-8

Prevalence of selected dental anomalies among a sample of school children in Tanta


Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

Date of Submission19-Dec-2018
Date of Acceptance03-Apr-2019
Date of Web Publication20-Jun-2020

Correspondence Address:
Amira Mostafa Mostafa
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta Governorate, 31527
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_44_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Objective
To determine the prevalence of selected developmental anomalies among a sample of Tanta school children.
Patients and methods
This study was conducted on 3020 healthy Egyptian children (1510 boys and 1510 girls) aged 8–14 years old. The children were selected from 94 primary and preparatory schools in Tanta between March 2016 and February 2017, and their teeth were examined clinically according to WHO criteria for oral health survey for presence of selected dental anomalies.
Results
The total prevalence of anomalies was 20.36% as follow: hypodontia was 0.63%, hyperdontia was 0.3%, microdontia was 0.2%, peg shape lateral was 0.63%, cusp of carabelli was 5.5%, talon cusp was 0.23%, and gemination was 0.03%, enamel hypoplasia was 2.38%, demarcated opacities were 9.4%, diffuse opacities were 2.15%, transposition was 0.07%, and no cases of macrodontia, fusion, or dens invaginatus were detected in this study. There were no significant differences regarding sex or residence area except for peg shape lateral showed higher prevalence in rural areas (P < 0.05).
Conclusion
About fifth of children were affected by at least one anomaly which is comparable to other studies, dental anomalies may occur without relation to a disease or syndrome and dental anomalies nearly occur in both sexes equally.

Keywords: dental anomalies, school children, prevalence


How to cite this article:
Mostafa AM, Hamila NA, El-Desoky AE. Prevalence of selected dental anomalies among a sample of school children in Tanta. Tanta Dent J 2020;17:1-8

How to cite this URL:
Mostafa AM, Hamila NA, El-Desoky AE. Prevalence of selected dental anomalies among a sample of school children in Tanta. Tanta Dent J [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 9];17:1-8. Available from: http://www.tmj.eg.net/text.asp?2020/17/1/1/287099




  Introduction Top


Tooth development is a complex process that takes different stages and continues for long time after birth. Any interference with this normal process will result in developmental anomalies that may affect the number, size, shape, and structure of teeth and pattern of tooth eruption. These anomalies may be localized to single tooth or including systemic conditions, also they can occur in both primary and permanent dentitions [1],[2].

The factors leading to these developmental anomalies can be either genetic factors such as inheritance, metabolic and mutations or environmental factors including physical, chemical and biological factors, or combination of both genetics and environmental factors [3].

Early detection of dental anomalies is important to prevent their complications as: malocclusion, cosmetic deformities, periodontal problems, caries, and difficulties during dental treatment, also the knowledge of the prevalence of dental anomalies is very important as it can provide valuable information for genetic studies and also helps in the understanding of differences among population and between various population groups [4],[5].

There are many types of developmental anomalies such as anomalies in the number, size, shape, structure, and position of teeth. The anomalies of the number of teeth can be either decrease (hypodontia) or increase in the number (hyperdontia). On the other hand, anomalies of size can be in the form of microdontia, and macrodontia, while anomalies of shape include double teeth (fusion and gemination), talon cusp, peg shape lateral incisor and dens invaginatus [6].

Moreover, dental anomalies can also arise from changes in the three mineralized components of the tooth: enamel, dentin and cementum leading to structural abnormalities of the enamel and/or the gross form of a developing tooth. The developmental defects of enamel are classified under two main categories: enamel hypoplasia which is a quantitative defect of enamel, and enamel hypomineralization which is a qualitative defect which may be in form diffuse or demarcated opacities [7],[8].

Finally, any changes in the pattern of tooth eruption can lead to dental anomalies such as tooth transposition in which there is an exchange of position between two adjacent teeth [9].

There are many epidemiological studies on developmental dental anomalies have been conducted worldwide showing geographic and ethnic variation in their prevalence which ranges from 4.74 to 74% [10],[11],[12],[13]. Unfortunately, there are only few studies have been conducted in Egypt, so the present study is intended to determine the prevalence of selected developmental anomalies among a sample of Tanta school children.


  Patients and Methods Top


Study design

Observational descriptive cross-sectional design was adopted in this study.

The study setting

The study was done among 3020 healthy Egyptian children, aged 8–14 years, at primary and preparatory (public and private) schools in Tanta between March 2016 and February 2017.

Sample size selection

The sample size was calculated using Epi info software created by WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the size of sample was found to be more than 400 based on 95% confidence level. Sample size was increased to 3020 to improve validity of results and to enable the study to detect more dental anomalies.

Sampling technique

Multistage sample was selected for this study; it was selected on the basis of ease of accessibility. First the center and 23 villages were selected, then total of 94 primary and preparatory schools were selected from these areas, then from each school only one class was selected from third to sixth grade in primary and from first and second grade in preparatory schools of both sexes, then from each class about 30–35 children were selected for the examination.

Exclusion criteria

Children with any medical history such as Down's syndrome, ectodermal dysplasia, cleft lip and cleft palate and Cleidocranial Dysostosis were excluded from the study.

Ethical considerations

Approval for this study was obtained from Research Ethics Committee at Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Ministry of Education, Education affairs and school authorities. Informed consent/ascent to examine the children were taken from parents and their children after sending letters to explain the aim of the study according to the guidelines of Research Ethics Committee at Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University.

Clinical examination and data collection

The students were informed about the purpose of the study and their teeth were examined by the same examiner (author) according to WHO criteria for oral health survey [14], and the diagnosis was based only on clinical examination using the following criteria [15]:

  1. Hypodontia: student had clinical missed permanent teeth with no history of tooth extraction or trauma, or prolonged retention of primary tooth [16].
  2. Supernumerary tooth: a tooth which present in addition to the normal dentition.
  3. Macrodontia: a tooth that is substantially larger than average normal size or to the contra lateral tooth [17].
  4. Microdontia: a tooth that is much smaller than the average normal size, or its contra lateral tooth [17].
  5. Gemination and fusion: two teeth appear to be united because of division of a tooth germ or union of two germs. In case of fusion, there will be one less tooth in the arch than normal, while in gemination, the total number of teeth is normal, when the affected tooth is counted as one.
  6. Talon cusp: a prominent accessory cusp-like structure projecting incisally from the cingulum area of an incisor.
  7. Carabelli cusp: a characteristic morphological anomaly (cusp prominence) on the mesiopalatal surface of the upper first permanent molars.
  8. Peg-shaped lateral incisor: any upper lateral incisor with a reduction in its mesio-distal size in a gingivo-incisal direction.
  9. Dens invaginatus: an invagination of enamel in the crown of the tooth.
  10. Enamel hypoplasia: a quantitative defect of enamel clinically identified as grooved or pitted enamel with reduced thickness while the surface hardness is normal, it may be localized defect or generalized defect [14].
  11. Enamel hypocalcification. Demarcated opacity: enamel of normal thickness and intact surface, with alteration in the translucency of the enamel. It is demarcated from the adjacent normal enamel with a clear boundary and can be white, cream, yellow or brown in color. Diffuse opacity: an alteration in the translucency of the enamel, white in color with no clear boundary between the adjacent normal enamel [14].
  12. Tooth transposition: the positional interchange of two adjacent teeth.



  Results Top


The results of the present study revealed that dental anomalies were found in 615 children representing 20.36% of the study sample, 19.36% have only one anomaly while 1% has more than one anomaly.

The prevalence of hypodontia was 0.63%, hyperdontia was 0.3%, microdontia was 0.2%, peg-shape lateral was 0.63%, cusp of carabelli was 5.5%, talon cusp was 0.23%, and gemination was 0.03%, enamel hypoplasia was 2.38%, demarcated opacities were 9.4%, diffuse opacities were 2.15%, transposition was 0.07%, and no cases of macrodontia, fusion, or dens invaginatus were detected in this study.

[Table 1] demonstrates distribution of dental anomalies among males and females, there were no significant differences between both sexes concerning all dental anomalies.
Table 1: Distribution of dental anomalies in both sexes

Click here to view


[Table 2] demonstrates distribution of dental anomalies among urban and rural areas. There were no significant differences regarding residence area except for peg-shape lateral which showed higher prevalence in rural areas (P < 0.05) [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6] [Figure 7] [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10].
Table 2: Distribution of dental anomalies according to area of residence

Click here to view
Figure 1: Clinically bilateral missed upper lateral incisors in 13 years old female.

Click here to view
Figure 2: Supernumerary tooth.

Click here to view
Figure 3: Cusps of carabelli.

Click here to view
Figure 4: Talon cusp.

Click here to view
Figure 5: Gemination in upper left central incisor in 13 years old female.

Click here to view
Figure 6: Enamel hypoplasia.

Click here to view
Figure 7: Demarcated opacities.

Click here to view
Figure 8: Diffuse opacities.

Click here to view
Figure 9: Multiple anomalies in 12 years old female. Black arrow showing demarcated opacity in upper right incisor. Red arrow showing peg-shaped upper lateral incisor. White arrow showing retained lower deciduous incisor.

Click here to view
Figure 10: Transposition between lower right lateral incisor and lower right canine in 13 years old female.

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Although the prevalence of dental anomalies has been performed by many researchers in different populations, there is no published study in Tanta yet. For this reason, Tanta was chosen as the geographical area of the study, thus providing baseline data about the prevalence of broad range of dental anomalies and their distribution in accordance with sex and residence area.

The age group selected for this study was 8–14 years old, since in persons of mid-teen age and above, the chances of misdiagnosis of some anomalies increase because some teeth may be lost as a result of caries and trauma or extracted as part of orthodontic treatment [18],[19]. This study was carried out at schools, thus increasing the chances of including children free from any syndromes to avoid their association with dental anomalies, also allowing access to children of different socioeconomic status giving methodological strength for the study.

This study respected the clinical examination only since there is no radiographs equipment was available, and no legal obligation to take radiographs in the dental health surveying held at the schools [16]. The (American Dental Federation) FDI technical reports suggested that congenitally missed and supernumerary teeth can be studied without the use of radiographs [19].

The overall prevalence of dental anomalies was 20.36% in the present study. This result disagreed with Garib [20], and Hagiwara et al. [16] who reported different prevalence of dental anomalies in their clinical studies among school students (40.2 and 4.82%, respectively). These different results may be attributed to different types of anomalies evaluated in each study and to racial differences.

In the present study, the prevalence of hypodontia was 0.63%, this result approximated the results of Basalamah and Baroudi [21] and Guttal et al. [22] who reported that the prevalence of hypodontia was 0.4 and 0.3%, respectively. In contrary, Montasser and Taha [23] reported prevelance of 2.36% for hypodontia in Egypt. Also the systematic review by Khalaf et al. [24] revealed that the overall prevalence of hypodontia was 6.4% worldwide. These different results may be attributed to differences in study pattern and examination technique, as this clinical study was directed toward school children, whereas some other researchers studied dental anomalies among orthodontic patients using radiographs or including third molar in their studies.

In this study females showed higher prevalence of hypodontia when compared to males without significant difference. This finding agreed with Polder et al. [25], Khalaf et al. [24], Acev and Gjorgova [26], and Serour and Abu Affan [27], who reported that hypodontia is more common in females.

The prevalence of supernumerary teeth in this study was 0.3%. This result agreed with several studies [16],[20],[21],[28],[29] who documented that the prevalence of hyperdontia ranged between 0.2 and 0.38%. On the other hand, studies by Montasser and Taha [23], Diab [30], Kathariya et al. [31], and Lotfy [32], revealed higher prevalence of supernumerary teeth than this study, this may be attributable to that radiographs were not used in this investigation, therefore it was unable to confirm presence of impacted supernumerary teeth with no signs of eruption. Males showed higher prevalence of supernumerary teeth when compared to females with no statistically significant difference. This finding is in agreement with Osuji and Hardie [33], Berrocal et al. [34] and Küchler et al. [35].

In the present study, no cases of macrodontia were recorded. This result agreed with Şener et al. [12] who published that no cases of macrodontia were present in their study. On the other hand, this finding disagreed with Kathariya et al. [31] and Yassin [36] who reported that prevalence of macrodontia was 1.3 and 1.8%, respectively. These different results may be attributed to genetic and racial factors.

The prevalence of microdontia was 0.2% in this study, this result approximated the result of Temilola et al. [15] who reported that microdontia was 0.1%. On contrast, this result disagreed with Kathariya et al. [31], Vibhute et al. [37], and Ramdurg et al. [38], who reported higher prevalence of microdontia (4.3, 7.7, and 5.7%, respectively). These different results may be attributed to quietly large sample size in this study which exceeded that of aforementioned studies, and to different diagnostic criteria as these studies considered peg lateral as microdont tooth, while in the present study, peg lateral was considered as an isolated anomaly.

In the present study the overall prevalence of peg shape lateral incisor was 0.63%. This result agreed with studies done by Salama and Abdel-Megid [39] and Fujita et al. [40], they recorded that prevalence of peg shape lateral was 0.7%. On contrary, this finding disagreed with Montasser and Taha [23], and Hua et al. [41]who reported higher prevalence of 1.96 and 1.8%, respectively. This may be attributed to different study groups as the present study was directed toward healthy school children.

In the present study, females showed slightly higher prevalence of peg-shaped lateral incisor than male with no statistically significant difference. Kabbani et al. [42] agreed that peg-shaped lateral incisors occurred in females more than males as recorded in this study, while Lotfy [32] reported that males are more affected that females. This may be attributed to different sample size of the examined groups. Also, in the present study, rural areas revealed significant higher prevalence of peg-shape lateral incisors, this may be attributed to genetic and environmental factors.

In the present study, cusp of carabelli represented 5.5% of the study sample. This result disagreed with other studies done by Raščić et al. [43], Al Shethri [44], and Kirthiga et al. [45] who reported that the prevalence of cusp of carabelli was 23, 33.5, and 19.5%, respectively. These differences may be attributed to different diagnostic criteria as in this study only cusp prominence was considered while in the previous studies even the shallow furrows on mesio-lingual cusp of upper first molars were considered as an anomaly. Males showed higher prevalence of cusp of carabelli when compared to females with no statistically significant difference. This result disagreed with Falomo [46], while Niazi et al. [47] and Subedi et al. [48] who reported higher prevalence in females, this may be attributed to different sample size of the examined groups.

In the present study, talon cusp represented only 0.23% of the study sample, close results of 0.29% and 0.2% were recorded by Sreeshyla [18] and Nayak and Nayak [49], respectively. This result disagreed with Hamasha and Safadi [50] who detected that prevalence talon cusp was 2.4% using radiographic examination alone which may be misleading, while this study depended on clinical examination which is more reliable in talon cusp detection. Also higher prevalence of 4.28% was reported by Guttal et al. [22], this may be attributed to genetic factors, and to different diagnostic criteria as in this study only projections that extend at least half distance from CEJ to the incisal edge were considered as talon cusp. Males and females showed equal distribution of talon cusp in this study, while Cho et al. [51] and Sreeshyla [18] reported that females were more affected than males. This may be attributed to different sample size in the examined groups.

Regarding double teeth, only one case of gemination was present in a female rural resident student representing prevalence of 0.03%. This rare occurrence of gemination is in a line with Altug-Atac and Erdem [11], and Hagiwara et al. [16] who reported the prevalence of gemination was 0.07 and 0.01%, respectively. Also, other researchers as Aljazi and Abdullah [52], Santosh et al. [53], Herrera-Atoche et al. [54], and Temilola et al. [15] reported no cases of gemination in their studies. On contrast, this result disagreed Ardakani et al. [55], Bunyarit et al. [56], and Luke et al. [57] who reported higher prevalence of gemination as 2.1, 0.5, and 1.1%, respectively.

There were no cases of fusion were recorded in this study, this finding agreed with Bäckman and Wahlin [58], Aljazi and Abdullah [52], Montasser and Taha [23], Santosh et al. [53], and Temilola et al. [15]who reported that no cases of fusion were found in their studies, while disagreed with Guttal et al. [22], Vibhute et al. [37], and Yassin [36] who reported that prevalence of fusion was 4.85, 0.9, and 0.8%, respectively. This higher prevalence of double teeth may be attributed to different study pattern as this study only includes permanent teeth in healthy school children and to different sample size of examined groups.

No cases of dens invaginatuis were recorded in this study, this is similar to Temilola et al. [15] in Nigeria, and in a close relation to Sreeshyla [18] study in India who reported that prevalence of dens invaginatus was 0.02%. Nevertheless other studies from Iran showed higher prevalence of 1.44 and 10.9% as documented by Ghabanchi et al. [59], and Dalili et al. [60], respectively, and in Jordan, the prevalence was 2.95% by Hamasha and Alomari [61]. These higher results may be attributed to different methodology, as they used radiographs in their studies among patients.

In the present study the overall prevalence of enamel defects was 13.95%. This result disagreed with Hawas [62], and with Al-Sheraydah and Al-Dahan [63] who published that prevalence of enamel defects in permanent teeth was 38.9 and 30.5%, respectively. These differences may be attributed to different sample size of the examined groups and different indices used in diagnosis.

Enamel hypoplasia was 2.38% in the present study, this result approximated the results of Raščić et al. [43], and Basalamah and Baroudi [21] who reported that the prevalence of enamel hypoplasia was 2 and 2.8%, respectively, while disagreed with Robles et al. [64] and Abdullah [65] who recorded that the prevalence of enamel hypoplasia was 0.8 and 9.04%, respectively. This may be attributed to different ethnic groups with different nutrition and different local factors as abscess or local trauma to the predecessor primary tooth [66]. On the other hand, the prevalence of enamel hypocalcification was 11.5%. This finding disagreed with Raščić et al. [43], and Hawas [62] who reported that the prevalence of enamel hypocalcification was 7 and 34.3%, respectively. These different results may be attributed to different indices used in diagnosis and different sample size.

Additionally, in the present study, the prevalence of enamel hypocalcification was more prevalent than hypoplasia, these finding in a line with Raščić et al. [43], Nayak and Nayak [49], Hawas [62], and Robles et al. [64]who agreed that enamel hypocalcification was more prevalent than hypoplasia. This may be attributed to that enamel hypoplasia associated with environmental disturbances during the short secretory stage, while enamel hypocalcification associated with environmental disturbances during transitional and maturational stage which occupy longer time in amelogenesis process [62],[67].

Regarding all enamel defects, there is no significant difference was found in relation to sex or residence area; this is in agreement with Shiu-Yin et al. [68], Hawas [62], and Hamdan [69] who found that enamel defects were equal in males and females, while disagrees with Basha et al. [70] who found that enamel defects were more common in males than females, also disagree with Hamdan [69] who found that the prevalence of enamel defects was higher in rural areas.

Finally, the prevalence of transposition was recorded as 0.07% in the present study, this result agreed with Küchler et al. [35], and Hatzoudi and Moschos [71] who stated that the prevalence of transposition was 0.08 and 0.09%, respectively. In contrary, Moschos et al. [72] showed that tooth transposition has a mean prevalence of 0.33% worldwide, this may be attributed to different study groups, different sample size and racial differences.

This study had some limitations in detection of dental anomalies that could be present within the bone such as supernumerary teeth and hypodontia, also diagnosis of microdontia and macrodontia depended on visual examination without measuring the dimensions of teeth on casts.


  Conclusion Top


  1. About fifth of children were affected by at least one anomaly which is comparable to other studies.
  2. Dental anomalies may occur without relation to a disease or syndrome.
  3. Dental anomalies nearly occur in both sexes equally.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Avery J. Development of teeth and oral structure. In: Avery J Oral development and histology ed. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme; 2002. 72–107.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Javali R, Meti M. Prevalence of developmental anomalies of teeth in a group of North Karnataka population, India. Int J Dent Res 2015; 3:5–9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Rohilla M. Etiology of various dental developmental anomalies: review of literature. J Dent Prob Soln 2017; 4:19–25.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Yaacob H, Narnbiar P, Naidu M. Racial characteristics of human teeth with special emphasis on the Mongoloid dentition. Malays J Pathol 1996; 18:1–7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Mohammed A. Distribution and prevalence of various developmental dental anomalies in Iraqi population: a radiographic study. Mustansiriya Dent J 2017; 14:137–146.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Soames J, Southam J. Disorders of development of teeth and craniofacial anomalies. In: Soames J, Southam J eds. Oral pathology 4th ed. New Delhi: Oxford; 2005. 1–17.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Wong H. Aetiological factors for developmental defects of enamel. Austin J Anat 2014; 1:1–9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Guerra F, Mazur M, Corridore D, Pasqualotto D, Nardi G, Ottolenghi L. Evaluation of the esthetic properties of developmental defects of enamel: a spectrophotometric clinical study. Sci World J 2015; 15:1–9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Muhamad A, Nezar W, Abdulgani A. Prevalence of tooth transposition in Arab Israelian (Arab48) population; a retrospective study. Int Org Sci Res J Dent Med Sci 2015; 1:65–71.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Thongudomporn U, Freer T. Prevalence of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Aust Dent J 1998; 43:395–398.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Altug-Atac A, Erdem D. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007; 131:510–514.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Şener S, Bozdaǧ G, Ünlü N. Presence, distribution, and association of dental anomalies: a clinical and radiographical study. Clin Dent Res 2011; 35:43–52.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Aren G, Guven Y, Tolgay C, Ozcan İ, Bayar O, Kose T, et al. The prevalence of dental anomalies in a Turkish population. J IstanUniv Fac Dent 2015; 49:23–28.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
WHO. Oral health surveys: basic methods. 4th ed. World Health Organization; 1997.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Temilola D, Folayan M, Fatusi O, Chukwumah N, Onyejaka N, Oziegbe E, et al. The prevalence, pattern and clinical presentation of developmental dental hard-tissue anomalies in children with primary and mix dentition from Ile-Ife, Nigeria. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14:1–8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Hagiwara Y, Uehara T, Narita T, Tsutsumi H, Nakabayashi S, Araki M. Prevalence and distribution of anomalies of permanent dentition in 9584 Japanese high school students. Odontology 2016; 104:380–389.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Nelson S. Introduction to dental anatomy in Nelson S Wheeler's dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. 10th ed. Berlin, Germany: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. 11–18.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Sreeshyla H. Prevalence of developmental anomalies of teeth in Coorg district, Karnataka state – an epidemiological study of 5000 cases [PhD thesis]. Bengaluru: Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences; 2010.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Brook A. Variables and criteria in prevalence studies of dental anomalies of number, form and size. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 1975; 3:288–293.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Garib B. The prevalence of oral developmental disturbances and dental alignment anomalies in females of secondary schools in Thamar city (14-21 years). J Bagh Col Dent 2006; 18:35–39.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Basalamah M, Baroudi K. Prevalence of oro-dental anomalies among schoolchildren in Sana'a city, Yemen. East Med Health J 2016; 22:34–40.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Guttal K, Naikmasur V, Bhargava P, Bathi R. Frequency of developmental dental anomalies in the Indian population. Eur J Dent 2010; 4:263–269.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Montasser M, Taha M. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients. Art Pract Dentofac Enhancement 2012; 13:52–59.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Khalaf K, Miskelly J, Voge E, Macfarlane TV. Prevalence of hypodontia and associated factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthodon 2014; 41:299–316.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Polder B, Van't Hof M, Van der Linden F, Kuijpers A. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teeth. Com Dent Oral Epidem 2004; 32:217–226.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Acev D, Gjorgova J. Prevalence of hypodontia in the permanent dentition of macedonian population. Balkan Dent Med 2014; 18:93–98.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Serour A, Abu Affan A. Prevalence of hypodontia in permanent dentition in a sample of Sudanese University Students. Int Arab J Dent 2014; 392:1–6.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Dang H, Constantine S, Anderson P. The prevalence of dental anomalies in an Australian population. Aust Dent J 2017; 62:161–164.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Afify A, Zawawi K. The prevalence of dental anomalies in the Western region of Saudi Arabia. Int Sch Res Not Dent 2012; 12:1–5.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Diab H. The prevalence of some dental anomalies on panoramic radiographs in Saudi population in AlKharj city. Egypt Dent J 2013; 59:2243–2247.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Kathariya M, Nikam A, Chopra K, Patil N, 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. 31
    
32.
Lotfy R. Prevalence of certain dental anomalies in a group of young Egyptians [MD thesis]. Cairo: Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, 2014.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Osuji O, Hardie J. Dental anomalies in a population of Saudi Arabian children in Tabuk. Saudi Dent J 2002; 14:11–14.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Berrocal M, Morales J, González J. An observational study of the frequency of supernumerary teeth in a population of 2000 patients. Med Oral Pat Oral Cir Bucal Ing 2007; 12:134–138.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Küchler E, Risso P, de Castro Costa M, Modesto A, Vieira AR. Studies of dental anomalies in a large group of school children. Arch Oral Biol 2008; 53:941–946.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Yassin S. Prevalence and distribution of selected dental anomalies among saudi children in Abha, Saudi Arabia. J Clin Exp Dent 2016; 8:485–490.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Vibhute A, Vibhute N, Daule R. Prevalence of dental anomalies in pretreatment orthodontic patients in Western Maharashtra, India: an epidemiological study. J Orthodon Res 2013; 1:66–69.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Ramdurg P, Mendegeri V, Vanishree B, Achanur M, Srinivas N. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies of orthodontic patients among North Karnataka, India. Int J Com Med Pub Health 2017; 3:1466–1471.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Salama F, Abdel-Megid F. Hypodontia of primary and permanent teeth in a sample of Saudi children. Egypt Dent J 1994; 40:625–632.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Fujita Y, Hidaka A, Nishida I, Morikawa K, Hashiguchi D, Maki K. Developmental anomalies of permanent lateral incisors in young patients. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009; 33:211–216.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Hua F, He H, Ngan P, Bouzid W. Prevalence of peg-shaped maxillary permanent lateral incisors: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthodon Dentofac Orthoped 2013; 144:97–109.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Kabbani T, Abdullah N, Rsheadat Y, Hassan M. Prevalence of isolated maxillary lateral incisor agenesis in Syrian adolescents. J Orofac Orthoped 2017; 78:62–69.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Raščić H, Vuković A, Zukić S, Bajsman A, Prcić A. Dental anomalies among students of Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sarajevo. Act Med Acad 2006; 35:23–29.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Al Shethri S. The prevalence of the Carabelli cusp in selected Saudi population, King Saud University. J Dent Sci 2011; 2:13–16.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Kirthiga M, Poornima P, Sasalwad S, Nagaveni N. Prevalence of a few variant dental features in children aged 11–16 years in Davangere, a city in Karnataka. J Foren Dent Sci 2016; 8:13–17.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Falomo O. The cusps of Carabelli: frequency, distribution, size and clinical significance in Nigeria. West Afr J Med 2002; 21:322–324.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Niazi M, Najmi Y, Qadri M. Frequency of cusp of carabelli in orthodontic patients reporting to Islamabad Dental Hospital. Pak Orthodon J 2016; 8:85–88.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Subedi N, Sah S, Chataut TP, Paudel S, Pradhan A. The Prevalence of the carabelli trait in selected Nepalese population. Br J Med Med Res 2015; 7:285–291.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Nayak P, Nayak S. Prevalence and distribution of dental anomalies in 500 Indian school children. Bang J Med Sci 2011; 10:41–44.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Hamasha A, Safadi R. Prevalence of talon cusps in Jordanian permanent teeth: a radiographic study. BioMed Cen Oral Health 2010; 10:1–5.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Cho S, Ki Y, Chu V, Lee C. An audit of concomitant dental anomalies with maxillary talon cusps in a group of children from Hong Kong. Prim Dent Care 2008; 15:153–156.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Aljazi A, Abdullah A. A study on dento/skeletal discrepancies and dental anomalies in a sample of Saudi orthodontic patients [MD thesis]. Riyadh: College of Dentistry, King Saud University, 2010.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Santosh P, Bharati D, Sumita K, Farzan R. Prevalence of dental anomalies in Indian population. J Clin Exp Dent 2013; 5:183–186.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Herrera-Atoche J, Diaz-Morales S, Colome-Ruiz G, Escoffie-Ramirez M, Orellana M. Prevalence of dental anomalies in a Mexican population. Dentistry 2014; 2:1–5.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Ardakani F, Sheikhha M, Ahmadi H. Prevalence of dental developmental anomalies: a radiographic study. Com Dent Health 2007; 24:140–144.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Bunyarit S, Asma A, Rahman N, Adri S, Rahman M. Dental anomalies and gender dimorphism in tooth size of Malay patients. Bang J Med Sci 2017; 16:115–121.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Luke A, Kassem R, Dehghani S, Mathew S, Shetty K, Ali I, et al. Prevalence of dental developmental anomalies in patients attending a Faculty of Dentistry in Ajman, United Arab Emirates. Pesq Brasil Odontoped Clin Integ 2017; 17:1–5.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Bäckman B, Wahlin Y. Variations in number and morphology of permanent teeth in 7-year-old Swedish children. Int J Paediat Dent 2001; 11:11–17.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Ghabanchi J, Haghnegahdar A, Khodadazadeh S, Haghnegahdar S. A radiographic and clinical survey of dental anomalies in patients referring to Shiraz dental school. J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci 2010; 10:26–31.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Dalili Z, Nemati S, Dolatabadi N, Javadzadeh A, Mohtavipoor S. Prevalence of developmental and acquired dental anomalies on digital panoramic radiography in patients attending the dental faculty of Rasht, Iran. J Dentomaxillofac 2013; 1:24–32.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Hamasha A, Alomari Q. Prevalence of dens invaginatus in Jordanian adults. Int Endodon J 2004; 37:307–310.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Hawas R, Taha S, Fouad W. Prevalence of visible enamel defects in permanent dentition among a group of Egyption children. Egypt Dent J 2012; 60:975–981.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Al-Sheraydah N, Al-Dahan Z. Dental anomalies in permanent teeth and the associated etiological factors among fifteen years-old students in Basrah city/Iraq. J Baghdad Col Dent 2017; 29:148–152.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Robles M, Ruiz M, Bravo Pérez M, González E, Peñalver M. Prevalence of enamel defects in primary and permanent teeth in a group of schoolchildren from Granada (Spain). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013; 18:187–193.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Abdullah M. The prevalence of dental disorders among primary and medium school children at age 8-15 years old in Fallujah City, Anbar Governorate, Iraq. J Res Med Dent Sci 2018; 6:243–248.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Younis W, Najm M. The prevalence of oral and dental developmental anomalies among 14-17 years Iraqi students in Missan governorate. J Baghdad Col Dent 2009; 21:90–95.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Reid D, Dean M. Variation in modern human enamel formation times. J Hum Evol 2006; 50:329–346.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Shiu-Yin C, Yung K, Vanessa C. Molar incisor hypomineralization in Hong Kong Chinese children. Int J Pediat Dent 2008; 18:348–352.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Hamdan M. The prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis among 12-year-old schoolchildren in Jordan. Int J Pediat Dent 2003; 13:85–92.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Basha S, Mohamed R, Swamy H. Prevalence and associated factors to developmental defects of enamel in primary and permanent dentition. Oral Health Dent Manag 2014; 13:588–594.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Hatzoudi M, Moschos A. Prevalence of tooth transposition in Greek population. Hell Orthodon Rev 2006; 9:11–22.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Moschos A, Chatzoudi M, Kaklamanos E. Prevalence of tooth transposition: a meta-analysis. Ang Orthodon 2010; 80:275–285.  Back to cited text no. 72
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

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 Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed163    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded39    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]