ORTODONTİK MALOKLUZYONLARIN ORTA ANADOLU BÖLGESİNDE YAŞAYAN BİREYLERDEKİ PREVELANSLARININ VE KARAKTERİSTİKLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2022, , 15 - 23, 28.03.2022

Gökhan Çoban , Gökhan Türker , Taner Öztürk , Nizami Hashimli Musa Göksu Ömer Avcı

https://doi.org/10.34108/eujhs.933683

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortodontik tedavi talep eden hastalarda, ortodontik malokluzyonların dağılımlarının incelenmesi ve farklı tip malokluzyonlardaki dişsel ve iskeletsel faktörlerin tanımlayıcı özelliklerinin cinsiyetler arasında ve genel olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Çalışmamıza ortodontik tedavi öncesi teşhis kayıtları değerlendirilen 495 iskeletsel Sınıf I (ortalama yaş: 16.11 ± 3.1), 379 iskeletsel Sınıf II (ortalama yaş: 16.14 ± 2.84) ve 188 iskeletsel Sınıf III (ortalama yaş: 16.94 ± 3.27) ilişkiye sahip toplam 1062 hasta (yaş aralığı: 12.0 – 39.0 yıl) dahil edilmiştir. Lateralsefalometrik radyografiler üzerinde maksilla ve mandibula arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesinde, ANB açısı kullanılmıştır (Sınıf I: ANB° = 0 ° ila 4 °; Sınıf II: ANB °> 4 °; Sınıf III: ANB °<0 °). Toplamda 21 doğrusal, 12 açısal ölçüm gerçekleştirilmiştir. Tüm iskeletsel malokluzyon tiplerinde kadınların efektif maksilla ve mandibula uzunlukları ve alt yüz yükseklikleri anlamlı şekilde daha kısa bulunmuştur. Genel olarak, erkekler ve kadınlar arasında overjet miktarında, istirahat keser görünümünde, alt çene diastemasında ve üst çene çapraşıklığında farklılıklar görülmüştür. İskeletsel malokluzyon görülme sıklığı Sınıf I (%46.6)>Sınıf II (%35.7)>Sınıf III (%17.7)’dir.Ayrıca bu çalışma, Anadolu popülasyonundaki iskeletsel Sınıf I, II ve III malokluzyonlara sahip erkek ve kadın hastaların sefalometrik teşhisi için referans değerlerini ve genel olarak tanımlayıcı bilgileri de sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Malokluzyon, prevelans, sefalometri, ortodonti

EVALUATION OF PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ORTHODONTIC MALOCCLUSIONS IN INDIVIDUALS IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the distribution of orthodontic malocclusions in patients who require orthodontic treatment and to evaluate the descriptive characteristics of dental and skeletal factors in different types of malocclusions between genders and in general. A total of 1062 patients (age range: 12.0 - 39.0 years) with 495 skeletal Class I (mean age: 16.11 ± 3.21), 379 skeletal Class II(mean age: 16.14 ± 2.84) and 188 skeletal Class III(mean age: 16.94 ± 3.27) relationships, whose diagnosis records were evaluated before orthodontic treatment, were included in our study. The ANB angle was used to determine the relationship between maxilla and mandible on lateral cephalometric radiographs (Class I: ANB ° = 0 ° to 4 °; Class II: ANB °> 4 °; Class III: ANB ° <0 °). In total, 21 linear and 12 angular measurements were performed. The effective maxilla and mandible lengths and lower face heights of women were significantly shorter in all types of skeletal malocclusion. In general, differences were observed between men and women in the amount of overjet, the incisor exposure in relaxed lip posture, the diastema of the mandible and the crowding of the maxilla. The incidence of skeletal malocclusion is Class I (46.6%)>Class II (35.7%)>Class III (17.7%). In addition, this study provides reference values and general descriptive information for the cephalometric diagnosis of men and women patients with skeletal Class I, II and III malocclusions in the Anatolian population.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Malocclusion, prevalence, cephalometry, orthodontics

Kaynakça

• 1. Balachandran P, Janakiram C. Prevalence of malocclusion among 8–15 years old children, India–A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2021; 11:192-199.
• 2. Krooks L, Pirttiniemi P, Kanavakis G, Lähdesmäki R. Prevalence of malocclusion traits and orthodontic treatment in a Finnish adult population. Acta Odontol Scand 2016; 74:362-367.
• 3. Ahangar-Atashi MH. Prevalence of Dental Malocclusions in Patients admitted to the Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tabriz, in 2016. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18:1034-1039.
• 4. Gelgör İE, Karaman Aİ, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central anatolia. Eur J Dent 2007; 1:125-131.
• 5. Thilander B, Pena L, Infante C, et al. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in children and adolescents in Bogota, Colombia. An epidemiological study related to different stages of dental development. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23:153-168.
• 6. Sayin M, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population. Angle Orthod 2004; 74:635-639.
• 7. Thilander B, Myrberg N. The prevalence of malocclusion in Swedish schoolchildren. Eur J Oral Sci 1973; 81:12-20. 8. Oden F, Bekar E, Bıçakcı AA. Evaluation of malocclusion and crowding in under orthodontic treatment. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2015; 18:257-264.
• 9. Sarı Z, Uysal T, Karaman A, ve ark. Ortodontik maloklüzyonlar ve tedavi seçeneklerinin değerlendirilmesi: Epidemiyolojik çalışma. Türk Ortodonti Derg 2003; 16:119-126.
• 10. 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:e791-796.
• 11. Isik F, Nalbantgil D, Sayinsu K, Arun T. A comparative study of cephalometric and arch width characteristics of Class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions. Eur J Orthod 2006; 28:179-183.
• 12. Baccetti T, Reyes BC, McNamara JA. Gender differences in Class III malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2005; 75:510-520.
• 13. Oral E, Buyuk SK, Simsek H. Evaluation of palatal rugae pattern in different sagittal skeletal relationship adolescent subjects. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e6440.
• 14. Fernandez CCA, Pereira CVCA, Luiz RR, et al. Dental anomalies in different growth and skeletal malocclusion patterns. Angle Orthod 2018; 88:195-201.
• 15. Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31:241-246.
• 16. Ramirez-Yañez GO, Stewart A, Franken E, Campos K. Prevalence of mandibular asymmetries in growing patients. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33:236-242.
• 17. Sharma PK, Sharma P. Dental smile esthetics: the assessment and creation of the ideal smile. Semin Orthod 2012; 128:193-201.
• 18. Pinho S, Ciriaco C, Faber J, Lenza MA. Impact of dental asymmetries on the perception of smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132:748-753.
• 19. Benkli YA, Kutalmış Büyük S, Koşgin S. Alt çene ön bölge çapraşıklığa sahip olgularda iki farklı braket sisteminin kısa dönem etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Yeditepe J Dent. 2019; 15: 152-158.
• 20. Katzt MI, Sinkford JC, Sanders Jr CF. The 100-year dilemma: what is a normal occlusion, and how is malocclusion classified? Quintessence Int 1990; 21:407-414.
• 21. Hans MG, Broadbent BH, Nelson SS. The Broadbent-Bolton Growth study—past, present, and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 105:598-603.
• 22. Kazancı F, Aydoğan C, Alkan Ö. Patients' and parents' concerns and decisions about orthodontic treatment. Korean J Orthod 2016; 46:20-26.
• 23. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Craniofacial structure of Anatolian Turkish adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125:366-372.
• 24. Yagci A, Ramoglu SI, Uysal T, Karaman AI. Standards of centrographic analysis in an anatolian Turkish population. Turkish J Orthod 2013; 26:36-44.
• 25. Uysal T, Yagci A, Aldrees AM, Ekizer E. Ethnic differences in dentofacial relationships of Turkish and Saudi young adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Saudi Dent J 2011; 23:183-190.
• 26. Al Zain T, Ferguson DJ. Cephalometric characterization of an adult Emirati sample with Class I malocclusion. J Orthod Sci 2012; 1:11-15.
• 27. Malkoç S, Demir A, Uysal T, Canbuldu N. Angular photogrammetric analysis of the soft tissue facial profile of Turkish adults. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31:174-179.
• 28. Celebi AA, Tan E, Gelgor IE, et al. Comparison of soft tissue cephalometric norms between Turkish and European-American adults. Scientific World Journal 2013; 2013:806203.
• 29. Basciftci FA, Uysal T, Buyukerkmen A. Determination of Holdaway soft tissue norms in Anatolian Turkish adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123:395-400.
• 30. Connor AM, Moshiri F. Orthognathic surgery norms for American black patients. Am J Orthod 1985;87:119-134.
• 31. Alam MK, Nowrin SA, Shahid F, et al. Cephalometric Characteristics of Bangladeshi adults with Class II Malocclusion. Int Res J Med Sci. 2014; 2:10-14.
• 32. Lew K, Foong W. Horizontal skeletal typing in an ethnic Chinese population with true Class III malocclusions. Br J Orthod 1993; 20:19-23.
• 33. Ingervall B, Mohlin B, Thilander B. Prevalence and awareness of malocclusion in Swedish men. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1978; 6:308-314.
• 34. Uysal T, Baysal A, Yagci A, et al. Ethnic differences in the soft tissue profiles of Turkish and European–American young adults with normal occlusions and well-balanced faces. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34:296-301.
• 35. Özdemir H, Köseoğlu M, Bayindir F. An investigation of the esthetic indicators of maxillary anterior teeth in young Turkish people. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120:583-588.
• 36. Proffit WR, Fields Jr H, Moray L. Prevalence of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need in the United States: estimates from the NHANES III survey. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1998; 13:97-106.