15-35 YAŞ ARASI GÜNEY TÜRK POPÜLASYONUNDA GÖMÜLÜ DİŞ SIKLIĞININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: EPİDEMİYOLOJİK ÇALIŞMA

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 3, 251 - 255, 01.09.2018

Sevcihan Günen Yılmaz İbrahim Şevki Bayrakdar Hümeyra Tercanlı Alkış Büşra Tanrıkol

https://doi.org/10.17343/sdutfd.365464

Cited By: 1

Öz

Amaç: Bu retrospektif çalışmada üçüncü molar dişler hariç diğer dişlerin
gömülü kalma sıklığının araştırılması amaçlanmıştır.

Gereç & Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya 2674
erişkin birey (Erkek/Kadın:1146/1528) (% 42.8/ %57.2) dahil edildi. Hastaların panoramik radyogramları gömülü dişlerin varlığı açısında üç
oral ve maksillofasiyal radyoloji uzmanı tarafından değerlendirildi. Gömülü
dişlerin; cinsiyet ve çenelerdeki dağılımlarını karşılaştırmak için ki-kare
testi kullanıldı. P <0.05 istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edildi.
Bulgular: 135 hastada toplam
167 gömülü diş saptandı. Bunların 74’ü kadınlarda, 61’i erkeklerde idi. Gömülü
dişlerin büyük kısmı maksiller kaninlerden oluşmaktaydı.
Sonuç: Bu epidemiyolojik
çalışma önceki çalışmalarla büyük benzerlikler göstermektedir ve aynı toplumda
daha fazla sayıda birey üzerinde incelenmesi uygundur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gömülü dişler, Radyogram

EVALUATION OF THE INCIDENCE OF IMPACTED TOOTH IN SOUTHERN TURKISH POPULATION AGED BETWEEN 15 AND 35 YEARS: AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY

Öz

ABSTRACT

Objective:
The objective of this study was to
investigate the incidence of teeth other than the third molar teeth to remain
impacted.

Material
& Methods:
A total of 2674 adult persons (Male/Female: 1146/1528; 42.8%/57.2%) were
included in this study. Panoramic radiograms of the patients were evaluated by
three oral and maxillofacial radiology specialists for the presence of
implanted teeth. Chi-square test was used to compared the distribution of the
impacted teeth to genders and localization in the maxilla and mandible. P <0.05 values were considered
statistically significant.

Results: A total of 167 impacted teeth were
found in 135 patients. Of these, 74 were in females and 61 in males. Majority
of the impacted teeth consisted of maxillary canines.

Conclusion: This epidemiological study showed
close similarities with the previous studies, and we recommend examination on a
larger number of individuals in the same population.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Impacted teeth, Radiogram

Kaynakça

• 1. Alling CC, Helfrick JF, Alling RD. Impacted Teeth. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Company. 1993.
• 2. Alling CC, Catone GA. Management of impacted teeth. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993; 51:3-6.
• 3. Maaita 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; 89:143-6.
• 4. Singh H, Lee K, Ayoub AF. Management of Asymptomatic Impacted Wisdom Teeth: A Multicenter Comparison. Br J Oral and Maxillofac. Surg 1996; 34:389-93. 5. 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.
• 6. Brown LH, Berkman S, Cohen D, Kaplan AL, Rosenberg M. A radiological study of the frequency and distribution of impacted teeth. J Dent Assoc S Afr 1982; 37:627-30.
• 7. Schersten E, Lysell L, Rohlin M. Prevalence of impaced thırd molars in dental students. Swed Dent J 1989; 13:7-13.
• 8. Chu FC, Li TK, Lui VK, Newsome PR, Chow RL, Cheung LK. Prevalence of impacted teeth and associated pathologies-a radiographic study of the Hong Kong Chinese population. Hong Kong Med J 2003; 9:158-63.
• 9. Shah RM, Boyd MA, Vakil TF. Studies of permanent tooth anomalies in 7,886 Canadian individuals I: impacted teeth. Dent J 1978; 44:262-4.
• 10. Stanley HR, Alattar M, Collett WK, Stringfellow HR Jr, Spiegel EH. Pathological sequelae of "neglected" impacted third molars. J Oral Pathol 1988; 17:113-7.
• 11. Kramer RM, Williams AC. The incidence of impacted teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1970; 237-41.
• 12. Rozsa N, Fabian G, Szadeczky B, Kaan M, Gabris K, Tarján I. Prevalence of impacted permanent upper canine and its treatment in 11-18-year-old orthodontic patients. Fogorv Sz 2003; 96:65-9.
• 13. Ezoddini AF, Sheikhha MH, Ahmadi H. Prevalence of dental developmental anomalies: a radiographic study. Community Dent Health 2007; 24:140-4.
• 14. Yavuz MS, Aras MH, Büyükkurt MC, Tozoglu S. Impacted mandibular canines. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8:78-85.
• 15. Grover PS, Lorton L. The incidence of unerupted permanent teeth and related clinical cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985; 59:420-5.
• 16. Sanu OO, Adeyemi TA, Isiekwe MC. Incidence of impacted mandibular canine and associated pathologies in an orthodontic patient population in Lagos, Nigeria. Nig Q J Hosp Med 2012; 22(4):291-5.
• 17. Dural S, Avcı N, Karabıyıkoğlu T. Gömük dişlerin görülme sıklığı, çenelere göre dağılımları ve gömülü kalma nedenleri. Sağ Bil Arş Derg 1996; 7:127-33.