Çukurova Bölgesinde Ortodontik Tedavi İsteğiyle Başvuran Adölesanlarda Dişsel ve İskeletsel Anomalilerin Prevalansı: Tek Kurum Deneyimi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Çukurova bölgesinde ortodontik tedavi isteğiyle başvuran adölesan hastalarda dişsel ve iskeletsel anomalilerin prevalansını belirlemek ve bu anomalilerin cinsiyet ve yüz tipi ile ilişkisini değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: Bu retrospektif kesitsel çalışma, Çukurova Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı'nın dijital arşivinde bulunan ve Ocak 2012–Nisan 2022 arası döneme tarihlenen 1000 adölesan hastanın kayıtları üzerinden yürütülmüştür. Dişsel anomaliler intraoral fotoğraflar ve panoramik radyograflar, iskeletsel anomaliler ile yüz tipleri lateral sefalometrik radyograflar ve analizler kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Veriler tanımlayıcı istatistiklerle analiz edilmiş, değişkenler arası ilişkiler Ki-kare testiyle incelenmiştir. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p<0,05 olarak kabul edilmiştir. Bulgular: Kayıtları incelenen 1000 adölesanın 621’i kadın, 379’u erkek olup yaş ortalaması 14,39±1,59’dur. Herhangi bir dişsel veya iskeletsel anomalisi olmayanların oranı %8,1’dir. Hastaların %23,3’ünde yalnızca dişsel, %7,6’sında yalnızca iskeletsel, %61’inde ise her iki anomali birlikte görülmüştür. En sık intramaksiller anomaliler ektopik sürme (%18,9), diastema (%12,0) ve gömülü diştir (%10,6). Dişsel Sınıf II maloklüzyon (%52,9) ve iskeletsel Sınıf II ilişki (%43,6) en yaygın sagittal anomalilerdir. İntermaksiller anomaliler arasında anterior çapraz kapanış (%20,3) ve anterior açık kapanış (%10,7) öne çıkmıştır. Erkeklerde anterior çapraz kapanış ile dişsel ve iskeletsel Sınıf III, kadınlarda ise dişsel ve iskeletsel Sınıf II anomalileri daha yüksektir (p<0,05). Dolikofasiyal bireylerde açık, brakifasiyal bireylerde derin kapanış daha sık görülmüştür (p<0,001). Sonuç: Çukurova bölgesindeki ortodontik tedavi isteğiyle başvuran adölesanlarda dişsel ve iskeletsel anomaliler yüksek prevalanstadır ve birbirine eşlik etmektedir. Çalışmamızın bulguları, yalnızca dişsel anomalilerin değil, aynı zamanda iskeletsel anomalilerin, yüz tipinin ve cinsiyetin ortodontik tedavi planlamasında dikkate alınmasının ve ortodontik bütüncül bakış açısının önemine vurgu yapmaktadır.

Keywords

• Dişsel-iskeletsel anomaliler
• maloklüzyon
• ortodonti
• prevalans
• adölesan

Supporting Institution

Bulunmamaktadır.

Project Number

Bulunmamaktadır.

Ethical Statement

Çalışmanın etik kurul onayı ÇÜTF Etik Kurulu'ndan alınmıştır.

Thanks

Bulunmamaktadır.

Prevalence of Dental and Skeletal Anomalies in Adolescents Seeking Orthodontic Treatment in the Çukurova Region: A Single-Center Study

Abstract

Objective: To determine the prevalence of dental and skeletal anomalies in adolescents seeking orthodontic treatment in the Çukurova region and to evaluate their associations with gender and facial type. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included records of 1,000 adolescent patients treated at the Department of Orthodontics, Çukurova University Faculty of Dentistry, between January 2012 and April 2022. Dental anomalies were assessed using intraoral photographs and panoramic radiographs, whereas skeletal anomalies and facial types were evaluated from lateral cephalometric radiographs. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were used for data analysis, with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Results: Among the 1,000 adolescents (621 females, 379 males; mean age, 14.39±1.59 years), 8.1% had no dental or skeletal anomalies. Dental anomalies alone were detected in 23.3% of patients, skeletal anomalies alone in 7.6%, and both in 61.0%. The most common intramaxillary anomalies were ectopic eruption (18.9%), diastema (12.0%), and impacted teeth (10.6%). Dental Class II malocclusion (52.9%) and skeletal Class II relationship (43.6%) were the most prevalent sagittal anomalies. The most frequent intermaxillary anomalies were anterior crossbite (20.3%) and anterior open bite (10.7%). Males showed significantly higher frequencies of anterior crossbite and dental and skeletal Class III anomalies, whereas dental and skeletal Class II anomalies were more common in females (p<0.05). Open bite was more frequent in dolichofacial individuals, whereas deep bite predominated in brachyfacial individuals (p<0.001). Conclusion: Dental and skeletal anomalies are highly prevalent and frequently coexist in adolescents seeking orthodontic treatment. Skeletal characteristics, facial type, and gender should be considered alongside dental anomalies during orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.

Keywords

• dental-skeletal anomalies
• malocclusion
• orthodontics
• prevalence
• adolescent

Project Number

Bulunmamaktadır.

References

1. 1. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th ed. Elsevier; 2018.
2. 2. Lombardo G, et al. Worldwide prevalence of malocclusion in the different stages of dentition: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2020;21(2):115-122.
3. 3. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989;11(3):309-320.
4. 4. Varma GRR, et al. Genetics in an orthodontic perspective. J Adv Clin Res Insights 2019;6(3):86-90.
5. 5. Neela PK, et al. Genetics of dentofacial and orthodontic abnormalities. Glob Med Genet 2020;7(4):95-100.
6. 6. Kathariya MD, et al. Prevalence of dental anomalies among school-going children in India. J Int Oral Health 2013;5(5):10-14.
7. 7. Uslu O, et al. Prevalence of dental anomalies in various malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(3):328-335.
8. 8. Selmani M, Bukleta MS. Prevalence of dental anomalies in various categories of malocclusion among orthodontic patients in the Kosovo region: a retrospective study. Eur J Gen Dent 2023;12(2):103-108.

9. 9. Foster TD, Menezes DM. The assessment of occlusal features for public health planning purposes. Am J Orthod 1976; 69:83-90.
10. 10. Nur B, et al. Prevalence of orthodontic malocclusion and evaluation criteria in 7 geographic regions of Turkey. Turk J Orthod 2014; 26:154-161.
11. 11. Patil S, et al. Prevalence of dental anomalies in an Indian population. J Clin Exp Dent 2013;5(4):183-186.
12. 12. Abu Alhaija ES, Al-Khateeb SN, Al-Nimri KS. Prevalence of malocclusion in 13-15-year-old North Jordanian school children. Community Dent Health 2005;22(4):266-271.
13. 13. Behbehani F, et al. Prevalence and severity of malocclusion in adolescent Kuwaitis. Med Princ Pract 2005;14(6):390-395.
14. 14. Kassis A, Serhal JB, Nassif BN. Malocclusion in Lebanese orthodontic patients: an epidemiologic and analytic study. Int Arab J Dent 2010;1(1):34-43.
15. 15. Komazaki Y, et al. Prevalence and gender comparison of malocclusion among Japanese adolescents: A population-based study. J World Fed Orthod 2012;1(2): e67-e72.
16. 16. Al-Jabaa AH, Aldrees AM. Prevalence of dental anomalies in Saudi orthodontic patients. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(4):724-730.
17. 17. Siddegowda R, Satish R. The prevalence of malocclusion and its gender distribution among Indian school children: An epidemiological survey. SRM J Res Dent Sci 2014;5(4):224.
18. 18. Baron C, et al. Prevalence of dental anomalies in French orthodontic patients: a retrospective study. Arch Pediatr 2018;25(7):426-430.
19. 19. Vinjolli F, et al. Dental anomalies in an Albanian orthodontic sample: A retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23:47.
20. 20. Ingervall B. Prevalence of dental and occlusal anomalies in Swedish conscripts. Acta Odontol Scand 1974;32(2):83-92.
21. 21. Johnson JS, Soetamat A, Winoto NS. A comparison of some features of the Indonesian occlusion with those of two other ethnic groups. Br J Orthod 1978;5(4):183-188.
22. 22. Silva RG, Kang DS. Prevalence of malocclusion among Latino adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119(3):313-315.
23. 23. Sayin MO, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population. Angle Orthod 2004;74(5):635-639.
24. 24. Gelgör IE, Karaman AI, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in Central Anatolia. Eur J Dent 2007;1(3):125-31.
25. 25. Celikoglu M, Akpinar S, Yavuz I. The pattern of malocclusion in a sample of orthodontic patients from Turkey. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15(5): e791-e796.
26. 26. Nunn JH, et al. The interdisciplinary management of hypodontia: background and role of paediatric dentistry. Br Dent J 2003;194(5):245-251.
27. 27. Schulze C. Developmental abnormalities of the teeth and jaws. In: Gorlin RJ, Goldman HM. Thoma's Oral Pathology. 6th ed. CV Mosby Co.; 1970.
28. 28. Rajendran R, Sivapathasundaram B. Shafer's Textbook of Oral Pathology. 6th ed. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2009.
29. 29. Tymofiyeva O, et al. Three-dimensional localization of impacted teeth using magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14(2):169-176.
30. 30. Nikiforuk G. Ectopic eruption: discussion and clinical report. J Ont Dent Assoc 1948; 25:243-246.
31. 31. Peck L, Peck S, Attia Y. Maxillary canine-first premolar transposition, associated dental anomalies and genetic basis. Angle Orthod 1993;63(2):99-109.
32. 32. Kaya S, Eskin K, Koç A. Radiologic evaluation of inverted teeth. NEU Dent J 2023; 5:47-53.
33. 33. Angle E. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos 1899; 41:248-264.
34. 34. Steiner CC. Cephalometrics for you and me. Am J Orthod 1953;39(10):729-755.
35. 35. Tweed CH. The Frankfort-mandibular plane angle in orthodontic diagnosis, classification, treatment planning, and prognosis. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1946;32(4):175-230.
36. 36. Ricketts RM. Perspectives in the clinical application of cephalometrics. The first fifty years. Angle Orthod 1981;51(2):115-150.