Relationship of Impacted Maxillary Third Molar Teeth with Sella Turcica Morphology

Öz

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between the morphological variations of sella turcica and maxillary third molar teeth impaction. Material and Method: The material of this study consisted panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs of 170 individuals (79 men, 91 women, mean age 19.02 ± 1.62) (Class I, 79; Class II, 71; Class III, 20). Individuals, included in this study, had impacted maxillary third molars unilaterally (n = 121) or bilaterally (n = 49). The variations of the sella turcica morphology evaluated in 6 different sub-groups on the individual lateral cephalometric radiographs. And the unilateral or bilateral impaction was investigated in terms of skeletal anomaly. Chi-Square analysis comparison tests were used to evaluate the groups. Results: 170 individuals with impacted maxillary third molar, 91 were female and 79 were male. There is no statistical difference between them in terms of unilateral and bilateral impacted teeth (p> 0.05). Of the 170 molar cases impaction in total, 79 are Class I, 71 are Class II, and 20 are Class III. There is no statistical difference between unilateral and bilateral buried cases in facial skeletal classification (p> 0.05). In this study, which included 170 individuals, when the impacted teeth were evaluated as total, the 2nd sella variation was observed in the individuals in this study (170/79) (46.5%). This is statistically significant (p <0.001). The most evident sella variation in unilateral 121 impacted molar is 2 (121/69) (57%). This is followed by the sella 1, sella 4, sella 6 variations, respectively. In the bilateral 49 embedded molar, the prominent sella variation is 6 (49/21) (42.9%). This is followed by the sella 4, sella 2, sella 1 variations, respectively. However, these are not statistically significant (p> 0.05). Conclusion: Sella 2 variation is the one most associated with impaction. Bilateral maxillary third molar impaction is more common in female individuals with Class II malocclusion than in male individuals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sella Turcica
• Maxillary Third Molar
• Cephalometry

Gömülü Maksiller Üçüncü Molar Dişlerin Sella Turcica Morfolojisi ile İlişkisi

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the relationship between the morphology and the morphology of sella tursica in 20 upper teeth.

Materials and Methods: The material of this study was divided into 3 skeletal groups (classes 1, 2 and 3) of 151 individuals (67 males, 84 females, mean age 19.02 ± 1.62) on panoramic and lateral cephalometric films. Variations in different morphologies due to Sella tursica bridging in lateral cephalometric films of individuals were evaluated.

Results: One-Way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison tests were used to evaluate the groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the skeletal groups whether the maxillary third molar teeth were unilateral or bilateral. On the other hand, unilateral buried 20 year old females were found to be statistically significant in the normal morphology of sellan among the groups depending on the morphology.

Conclusion: Unilateral or bilateral unilateral maxillary third molars revealed no significant difference in terms of sella tursica morphology. In our study, normal variation of the most common sella tursica was observed in individuals with different skeletal anomalies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sella Turcica
• Maksiller Üçüncü Molar
• Sefalometri

Kaynakça

1. 1. Yassir AY, Nahidh M, Yousif HA. Size and morphology of sella turcica in Iraqi adults. Mustansiria Dent J 2010;(7):23-30.
2. 2. Mutluer S. Sella turcica. Childs Nerv Syst 2006;(22):333.
3. 3. Becktor JP, Einersen S, Kjaer I. A sella turcica bridge in subjects with severe craniofacial deviations. Eur J Orthod 2000;(22):69-74.
4. 4. Meyer-Marcotty P, Reuther T, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A. Bridging of the sella turcica in skeletal Class III subjects. Eur J Orthod 2010;(32):148-53.
5. 5. Haji Ghadimi M, Amini F, Hamedi S, Rakhshan V. Associations among sella turcica bridging, atlas arcuate foramen (ponticulus posticus) development, atlas posterior arch deficiency, and the occurrence of palatally displaced canine impaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;(151):513-20.
6. 6. Kjær I. Sella turcica morphology and the pituitary gland- a new contribution to craniofacial diagnostics based on histology and neuroradiology. Eur J Orthod 2015;(37):28-36.
7. 7. Leonardi R, Barbato E, Vichi M, Caltabiano M. Skeletal anomalies and normal variants in patients with palatally displaced canines. Angle Orthod 2009;(79):727-32.
8. 8. Leonardi R, Barbato E, Vichi M, Caltabiano M. A sella turcica bridge in subjects with denta lanomalies. Eur J Orthod 2006;(28):580-5.

9. 9. Alkofide EA. The shape and size of the sella turcica in skeletal Class I, Class II, and Class III Saudi subjects. Eur J Orthod 2007;(29):457-63.
10. 10. Shrestha GK, Pokharel PR, Gyawali R, BhattaraiB,Giri J. The morphology and bridging of the sella turcica in adult orthodontic patients. BMC Oral Health 2018;(18):45.
11. 11. Sobuti F, Dadgar S, Seifi A, Musavi SJ, Hadian H. Relationship between bridging and dimensions of sella turcica with classification of craniofacial skeleton. Pol J Radiol 2018;(83):120-6.
12. 12. Zagga AD, Ahmed H, Tadros AA, Saidu SA. Description of the normal variants of the anatomical shapes of the sella turcica using plain radiographs: experience from Sokoto, Northwestern Nigeria. Ann Afr Med 2008;(7):77-81.
13. 13. Camp JD. The normal and pathologic anatomy of the sella turcica as revealed at necropsy. Radiology 1923;(1):65-73.
14. 14. Bergland RM, Ray BS, Torack RM. Anatomical variations in the pituitary gland and adjacent structures in 225 human autopsy cases. J Neurosurg 1968;(28):93-99.
15. 15. Carstens M. Die sella diagnostik. Fortschr Geb Rontgenstrahlen 1949;(71):257-272.
16. 16. Axelsson S, Storhaug K, Kjaer I. Post-natal size and morphology of the sella turcica. Longitudinal cephalometric standards for Norwegians between 6 and 21 years of age. Eur J Orthod 2004;(26):597-604.
17. 17. Canigur Bavbek N, Dincer M. Dimensions and morphologic variations of sella turcica in type 1 diabetic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;(145):179-87.
18. 18. Korayem M1, Alkofide E. Size and shape of the sella turcica in subjects with Down syndrome. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015;(18):43-50.
19. 19. Venta I, Ylipaavalniemi P, Turtola L. Clinical Outcome of Third Molars in Adults Followed During 18 Years. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;(62):182-185.
20. 20. Jones RM, Faqir A, Millett DT, Moos KF, McHugh S. Bridging and dimensions of sella turcica in subjects treated by surgical-orthodontic means or orthodontics only. Angle Orthod 2005;(75):714-8.
21. 21. Leonardi R, Barbato E, Vichi M, Caltabiano M. A sella turcica bridge in subjects with dental anomalies. Eur J Orthod 2006;(28):580-5.
22. 22. Peterson LJ. Principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2nd ed., London: BC Decker, Inc, 2004.
23. 23. Peterson LJ, Ellis III E, Hupp JR, Tucker MR Contemporary Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 3rd ed. Mosby, St. Louis. 1998;215-48.
24. 24. Taveras JM, Wood EH. Diagnostic Neuroradiology.MD: Williams & Wilkins Co 1964.
25. 25. Padhye MN, Dabir AV, Girotra CS, Pandhi VH. Pattern of mandibular third molar impaction in the Indian population: a retrospective clinico-radiographic survey. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 2013;116(3):e161-6.
26. 26. Liu DG, Zhang WL, Zhang ZY, Wu YT, Ma XC. Localization of impacted maxillary canines and observation of adjacent incisor resorption with cone-beam computed tomography. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics. 2008;105(1):91-8.
27. 27. Turker MN. Evaluation of 20 age teeth and M3 distance buried in people who lived in different circuits in Anatolia. Journal of A.U. Dentist. Fuculty1980;(18): 37–48.
28. 28. Milles M, Desjardins PJ, Pawel HE. The facial plethysmograph: A new instrument to measure facial swelling volumetrically. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1985; (43): 346-352.
29. 29. Quek SL, Tay CK, Tay KH, Toh SL, Lim KC. Pattern of third molar impaction in a Singapore Chinese population: a retrospective radiographic survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;32:548-52.
30. 30. Björk A. Cranial base development: A follow-up xray study of the individual variation in growth occurring between the ages of 12 and 20 years and its relation to brain case and face development. Am J Orthod 1955;41:198-225.
31. 31. Melsen B. The cranial base. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1974;32: suppl 62,1-126.
32. 32. Lang J. Structure and postnatal organization of heretofore uninvestigated and infrequent ossifications of the sella turcica region. Acta Anat 1977;99:121-139.
33. 33. Platzer W. Zur anatomie der ‘‘sellabrucke’’ und ihrer bezeihung zur A. carotis interna. Fortsch Geb Roentgen Nuklear 1957;87:613-616.
34. 34. Weisberg LA, Zimmerman EA, Frantz A. Diagnosis and evaluation of patients with enlarged sella. Am J Med 1976;61:590-596.
35. 35. Teal JS. Radiology of the adult sella turcica. Bull Los Angeles Neurol Soc 1977;42:111-174.
36. 36. Weisberg LA. Asymptomatic enlargement of the sella turcica. Arch Neurol 1975;32:483-485.
37. 37. Miloro M, Ghali GE, Larsen PE, Waite PD. Peterson’s Principles of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2nd ed., London: BC Decker, Inc, 2004.
38. 38. Venta l, Turtola L, Ylipaavalniemi P. Radiographic follow-up of impacted third molars from age 20 1o 32 years, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001;(30): 54 -57.
39. 39. Sağlam AA, Tüzüm MS. Clinical and radiologic investigation of the incidence, complications, and suitable removal times for fully impacted teeth in the Turkish population. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(1):53-9.
40. 40. Sarı Z, Uysal T, Karaman Aİ, Başçiftçi FA, Üşümez S, Demir A. Ortodontik malokluzyonlar ve tedavi seçeneklerinin değerlendirilmesi: epidemiyolojik çalışma, Türk Ortodonti Dergisi, 2003;16(2), 119-26.
41. 41. Sayın MO, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population, Angle Orthod, 2004;74(5), 635-9.
42. 42. Tuğsel Z, Kandemir S, Küçüker F. Evaluation of Burial Situations of Third Molars in University Students. Cumhuriyet University. Dentist. Faculty. Journal 2001; 22 (4): 102-5.
43. 43. Çelikoğlu M, Miloğlu Ö, Kamak H, Kazancı F, Öztek Ö, Ceylan İ. Retrospective Investigation of Embedded Teeth Frequency in Individuals Living in Erzurum and its Vicinity and Their Age Between 12-55. Atatürk Univ. Dentist. Faculty. Journal. 2009; 19: 72-5.
44. 44. Dural S, Avcı N, Karabıyıkoglu T. The incidence of buried teeth, their distribution according to the jaws and the reasons for impaction. Journal of Health Sciences Research. 1996; 7: 127-33.
45. 45. Yazıcı S, Kökden A, Tank A. A Retrospective Study on Embedded Teeth. Cumhuriyet University Dentist. Faculty Journal. 2002; 5: 46-51.
46. 46. Kronmiller, JE, beeman, CS, nguyen, T, bemdt, W. Blockade of the initiation of murine odontogenesis in vitro by citral, an inhibitor of endogenous retinoic acid synthesis. Arch Oral Biol. 1995;(40): 645-652.
47. 47. Alling CC, Helfrick JF, Alling RD, Impacted Teeth,WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1993.
48. 48. Ali B, Shaikh A, Fida M. Association between sella turcica bridging and palatal canine impaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacia lOrthop 2014;(146):437-41.
49. 49. Abdel-Kader HM. Sella turcica bridges in orthodontic and orthognathic surgery patients. A retrospective cephalometric study. Aust Orthod J 2007;(23):30-5.
50. 50. Marsan G, Oztas E. Incidence of bridging and dimensions of Sella turcica in class I and class III Turkish adult female patients. World J Orthod 2009;(10):99–103.
51. 51. Weisberg LA. Asymptomatic enlargement of the sella turcica. Arch Neurol 1975;(32):483-485.
52. 52. Cederberg RA, Benson BW, Nunn M, English JD. Calcification of the interclinoid and petroclinoid ligaments of sella turcica: a radiographic study of the prevalence. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;(6):227-32.