Gömülü Kanin Varlığı ile Maksiller Diş Boyutları Arasındaki İlişkinin Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 18 - 24, 18.01.2023

Ezgi Sunal Aktürk , Elif Koç , Fatma Derin , Berza Sen Yilmaz

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1186187

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı bukkalde ve palatinalde unilateral gömülü maksiller kanin varlığının maksiller diş boyutları üzerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya 12’si bukkalde (yaş ortalaması: 14.93±2.81 yıl), 26’sı palatinalde (yaş ortalaması: 14.23±2.50 yıl) unilateral gömülü kanini olan toplam 38 hasta ve kontrol grubuna ise diş eksikliği olmayan randomize olarak seçilmiş 33 hasta (yaş ortalaması: 14.97±3.64 yıl) dahil edilmiştir. Dijital modeller üzerinde kaninler hariç, birinci molardan birinci molara maksiller dişlerin en geniş meziodistal ve bukkolingual boyutları ölçülmüştür.
Bulgular: Palatinalde gömülü maksiller kanini olan grupta gömülü kanin bulunan taraftaki lateralin bukkolingual boyutu normal tarafa göre anlamlı düzeyde küçük bulunmuştur (p=0.03). Bukkal gömülü kanin ve kontrol grubunda maksiller arkın her iki tarafındaki diş boyutları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmamıştır (p>0.05). Her iki taraf arasındaki diş boyut farklarının mutlak değerleri (│sağ taraf- sol taraf(mm)│, │gömülü taraf- normal taraf(mm)│) gruplar arasında karşılaştırıldığında ise tek anlamlı farklılık bukkal gömülü kanin grubu ve kontrol grubu arasında 1. premoların bukkolingual boyut farkında bulunmuştur (p=0.02). Hem kadınlarda hem erkeklerde her 3 grup arasında diş boyut ortalamaları benzer bulunmuştur (p>0.05).
Sonuç: Lateralin bukkolingual boyutunun küçük olmasının kaninin palatinalde gömülü kalmasında rol oynayabileceği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dijital model, diş boyutu, gömülü kanin

Teşekkür

İstatistiksel analiz için Dr.Öğr.Üyesi Elif Dilara Şeker’e teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

Evaluation of The Relationship of The Maxillary Teeth Size and Presence of Canine Impaction

Öz

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between buccally or palatally unilateral impacted maxillary canines and the maxillary teeth size.
Material and Methods: Twelve patients having buccally (14.93±2.81 years) and 26 patients having palatally impacted canine (14.23±2.50 years) were included in the study. The control group consisted of 33 patients who had no impaction (14.97±3.63 years). The widest mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions of maxillary teeth between first molars, except canines, were measured digitally.
Results: In the palatal impaction group, the buccolingual dimension of the lateral teeth on the impacted side were found to be smaller than the normal side (p=0.03). There was no significant difference between the sizes of teeth for both sides of the buccally impacted canine and control groups (p>0.05). The comparison of the absolute values of the tooth size differences between sides (│right side-left side(mm)│, │impacted side- normal side(mm)│) revealed that the only significant difference was present between the buccal impacted canine and the control groups for the first premolar buccolingual dimension (p=0.02). The mean tooth size was found to be similar between all groups in both sexes (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The small buccolingual dimension of the lateral tooth may play a role in the palatal impaction of the canine.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Digital model, impacted canine, tooth size

Kaynakça

• 1. Yavuz MS, Aras MH, Büyükkurt MC, Tozoglu S. Impacted mandibular canines. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:78-85.
• 2. Santosh P. Impacted mandibular third molars: Review of literature and a proposal of a combined clinical and radiological classification. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2015;5:229-34.
• 3. Becker A, Chaushu S. Etiology of maxillary canine impaction: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:557-67.
• 4. Grisar K, Piccart F, Al‐Rimawi AS, Basso I, Politis C, Jacobs R. Three‐dimensional position of impacted maxillary canines: Prevalence, associated pathology and introduction to a new classification system Clin Exp Dent Res 2019;5:19-25.
• 5. Counihan K, Al-Awadhi E, Butler J. Guidelines for the assessment of the impacted maxillary canine. Dent Update 2013;40:770-7.
• 6. Bedoya MM, Park JH. A review of the diagnosis and management of impacted maxillary canines. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1485-93.
• 7. Becker A, Smith P, Behar R. The incidence of anomalous maxillary lateral incisors in relation to palatally-displaced cuspids. Angle Orthod 1981;51:24-29.
• 8. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. The palatally displaced canine as a dental anomaly of genetic origin. Angle Orthod 1994;64:250-6.
• 9. Soto-Álvarez C, Fonseca G, Viciano J, Alemán I, Rojas-Torres J, Zúñiga MH, et al. Reliability, reproducibility and validity of the conventional buccolingual and mesiodistal measurements on 3D dental digital models obtained from intra-oral 3D scanner. Arch Oral Biol 2020;109:104575.
• 10. Hillson S, FitzGerald C, Flinn H. Alternative dental measurements: proposals and relationships with other measurements. Am J Phys Anthropol 2005;126:413-26.
• 11. Jacoby H. The etiology of maxillary canine impactions. Am J Orthod 1983;84:125-32.
• 12. Chaushu S, Sharabi S, Becker A. Tooth size in dentitions with buccal canine ectopia. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:485-91. 13. Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. Prevalence of tooth agenesis and peg-shaped maxillary lateral incisor associated with palatally displaced canine (PDC) anomaly. Am J Orthod 1996;110:441-3.
• 14. Zilberman Y, Cohen B, Becker A. Familial trends in palatal canines, anomalous lateral incisors, and related phenomena. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:135-9.
• 15. Schindel RH, Duffy SL. Maxillary transverse discrepancies and potentially impacted maxillary canines in mixed-dentition patients. Angle Orthod 2007;77:430-5.
• 16. Warford Jr JH, Grandhi RK, Tira DE. Prediction of maxillary canine impaction using sectors and angular measurement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:651-5.
• 17. Sambataro S, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Antonini F. Early predictive variables for upper canine impaction as derived from posteroanterior cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2005;75:28-34.
• 18. Oliver R, Mannion J, Robinson J. Morphology of the maxillary lateral incisor in cases of unilateral impaction of the maxillary canine. Br J Orthod 1989;16:9-16.
• 19. Mercuri E, Cassetta M, Cavallini C, Vicari D, Leonardi R, Barbato E. Dental anomalies and clinical features in patients with maxillary canine impaction: a retrospective study. Angle Orthod 2013;83:22-8.
• 20. Walker L, Enciso R, Mah J. Three-dimensional localization of maxillary canines with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:418-23.
• 21. Chung DD, Weisberg M, Pagala M. Incidence and effects of genetic factors on canine impaction in an isolated Jewish population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e331-e5.
• 22. Ericson S, Kurol J. Resorption of maxillary lateral incisors caused by ectopic eruption of the canines: a clinical and radiographic analysis of predisposing factors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:503-13.
• 23. Kokich VG, Mathews DP. Surgical and orthodontic management of impacted teeth. Dent Clin North Am 1993;37:181-204.
• 24. Lemos L, Rebello I, Vogel C, Barbosa M. Reliability of measurements made on scanned cast models using the 3Shape R700 scanner. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2015;44:20140337.
• 25. Becker A, Sharabi S, Chaushu S. Maxillary tooth size variation in dentitions with palatal canine displacement. Eur J Orthod 2002;24:313-8.
• 26. Paschos E, Huth KC, Fässler H, Rudzki-Janson I. Investigation of maxillary tooth sizes in patients with palatal canine displacement. J Orofac Orthop 2005;66:288-98.