Hatay Bölgesinde Gömülü Diş Prevalansının Retrospektif Olarak İncelenmesi

Cilt: 39 Sayı: 3 22 Temmuz 2014
İbrahim Damlar , Ahmet Altan , Ufuk Tatlı , Osman Fatih Arpağ
PDF İndir
EN TR

Retrospective Investigation of the Prevalence of Impacted Teeth in Hatay

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study were to examine localization, the prevalence of impacted permanent teeth and to perform the distributions according to sex and jaws in Hatay population. Material and methods: In this retrospective study, up to 5227 orthopantomograms of the patients (2865 women, 2362 men) who were referred to Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Dentistry, Hatay from December 2010 to June 2013 were examined. Data including the age, gender, localization were evaluated by statistical tests. Results: There were 2187 (% 41,8) patients having impacted teeth. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 80. Among the impacted teeth, mandibular third molars were the most common (% 64,7), followed by maxillary third molars (% 30,9), maxillary canines (% 3,1), mandibular premolars (%0,4), mandibular canines (% 0,3), maxillary premolars (% 0,2), maxillary central and lateral incisors (% 0,2), mandibular central and lateral incisors (% 0,1), mandibular first and second molarlars (% 0,07), maxillary first and second molars (% 0,03) Conclusion: In later stages of the people who lives in Hatay"s life, due to complications of impacted teeth usually extracted. The impacted teeth were seen without causing any symptoms in a small part of population.

Keywords

impacted teeth, retrospective study, prevelance

Kaynakça

  1. Ozan F, Yeler H, Yeler D. Mandibular Gömülü Daimi Kanin Dişle İlişkili Süpernümerer Diş Ve Kompaund Odontoma: Vaka Raporu. Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2005;15:61-4.
  2. Tuğsel Z, Kandemir S, Küçüker F. Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Üçüncü Molarların Gömüklük Durumlarının Değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Ünv. Diş Hek. Fak. Dergisi 2001;4:102-5.
  3. Alling CC, Helfrick JF, Alling RD. Impacted Teeth. WB Saunders Company. Philadelphia. 1993
  4. Peterson LJ, Ellis E, Hupp JR, Tucker MR, Contemporary Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, The CV Mosby Company, ST.Louis. 1988.
  5. Alling CC 3rd, Catone GA. Management of impacted teeth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;51:3-6.
  6. Dural S, Avcı N, Karabıyıkoglu T. Gömük dislerin görülme sıklıgı, çenelere göre dağılımları ve gömülü kalma nedenleri. Sağ. Bil. Arş. Derg. 1996;7:127-33.
  7. Ma’aita J, Alwrikat A. Is the mandibular third molar a risk factor for mandibular angle fracture? Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2000;89: 143Singh H, Lee K, Ayoub AF. Management of Asymptomatic Impacted Wisdom Teeth:A Multicenter Comparison. Br J Oral and Maxillofac. Surg. 1996;34:389-93
  8. Lima CJ, Silva LC, Melo MR, Santos JA, Santos TS. Evaluation of the agreement by examiners according to classifications of third molars. Med Oral Patol. Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17:281-6.
  9. Yazıcı S, Kökden A, Tank A. Gömülü Dişler Üzerine Retrospektif Bir Çalısma. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hek. Fak Derg. 2002;5:46-51.
  10. Hashemipour MA, Tahmasbi-Arashlow M, FahimiHanzaei F. Incidence of impacted mandibular and maxillary third molars: a radiographic study in a Southeast Iran population. Med Oral Patol. Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;18:140-5.